Abstract
Corporate social responsibility policies and codes of conduct are quite well known among Italian businesses and consumers.
However, the ethical awareness that a company shows through the adoption of a code of conduct is generally considered as a further tool of marketing, thus aimed at obtaining higher profits.
Therefore, besides the awareness on the existence of codes of conduct, the Italian business and consumer environment is still quite immature in taking seriously breaches of codes of conduct, since, as it happens for advertisement, codes of conduct are considered as making statements, the purpose of which is product promotion and not actually an ethical concern.
This is reflected by the absence of an articulate and sui generis legislation within the Italian system for sanctioning businesses, which perform commercial practices in breach of codes of conduct or CSR policies voluntarily adopted by them.
A piece of legislation specifically mentioning breaches to conduct codes have been introduced in Italy further the Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices.
The European rules sanctioning breaches to codes of conduct included in the mentioned Directive have been implemented in Italy within the Consumer Code, which specifically considers said breaches as misleading practices (if all the conditions set by the law are fulfilled).
Moreover, the Legislative Decree no. 145/2007 on misleading advertising (implementing the relevant rules also included within the Directive 2005/29/EC) could also be applied, when the breach of a conduct code leads to a hypothesis of misleading advertising.
Finally, although no specific mention is made to breaches of codes of conduct, the general rules on unfair competition included in the Italian Civil Code could also be applied.
Several subjects are entitled to enforce said regulations, although the features of said enforcement change according to the rules applied. Among those subjects it is worth mentioning that the regulatory authority Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM) is entitled to the enforcement de officio. Other subjects entitled to enforcement are consumers, associations of consumers, other competitors and other companies included in the supply chain of the breaching business.
The available remedies will be described within this chapter, although in some situation, as it happens for damages compensation, the relevant evidence becomes difficult and a successful enforcement could be at risk.
The chapter will attempt an assessment on the perception among consumers and businesses of the breaches of codes of conduct and the achievement by the Italian legislation of the goals set by the Directive 2005/29/EC. On this last point, an overview will be provided on the Italian legal debate concerning the chances given by the Directive for strengthening the role of codes of conduct and the missed opportunity of enacting such chances by the Italian legislator.
The focus of the evaluation will be made specifically on the conduct code regulating advertisement, Codice di Autodisciplina della Comunicazione Commerciale (“CAP”), a well-established code of conduct within the Italian system.
Finally, an overview on possible contrasts between antitrust law and codes of conduct is provided, concluding for the possible concern for competition raised by the situation where an undertaking owns a collective trademark for distinguishing a policy (or a code of conduct) highly popular among the business operators.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
UNIONCAMERE, Camere di Commercio di Italia, La responsabilità sociale delle imprese e gli orientamenti dei consumatori, 2006, p. 64, available at www.unioncamere.it.
- 2.
Codice di Autodisciplina della Comunicazione Commerciale (“CAP”). In particular, the first release of CAP dates back to 12 May 1966 and the last release, the 56th, was published on 31 December 2012. CAP is available at http://www.iap.it/it/codice.htm.
- 3.
The best known are the Social Accountability 8000 standard (known also as SA 8000), which strikes a balance between employment law and human rights; ISO 14001 on environmental protection, issued by the International Organization of Standardization; and the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) Guidelines on economic matters. On this point, see L. Bussoli, Responsabilità sociale, codici di condotta e pratiche commerciali sleali, in La responsabilità sociale dell’impresa: idee e prassi, a cura di Perulli A., 2013.
- 4.
P. Fabbio, I codici di condotta nella disciplina delle pratiche commerciali sleali, in Giurisprudenza Commerciale, Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile, July–August 2008, p. 726.
- 5.
Despite the voluntary nature of CAP, which is only binding on those entities that have accepted it, Italian case law states that its rules should be considered as parameters for evaluating the commercial fairness of practices performed by Italian undertakings. See Corte di Cassazione (Supreme Court), 15 February 1999, in Annali Italiani del Diritto d’Autore [AIDA], 1999, p. 407.
- 6.
Other regulations mention codes of conduct, but they only highlight the importance of the role of voluntary codes of conduct in reducing the workload of the courts or helping businesses to demonstrate their compliance with legal standards. See, for instance, Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce, implemented in Italy by the Legislative Decree of 9 April 2003, no. 70. However, no regulations that punish breaches of voluntary codes of conduct have been passed.
- 7.
Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (“Unfair Commercial Practices Directive”), OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, pp. 22–39.
- 8.
The first is the Legislative Decree of 2 August 2007, no. 145 on misleading and comparative advertising; the second Legislative Decree of 2 August 2007, no. 146 on unfair commercial practices, the latter transposed to the Italian Consumer Code, Articles 18–27-quater (Legislative Decree no. 206/2005, the “Consumer Code”). For a recent overview of this topic, see L.C. Ubertazzi, Le PCS ed il futuro dell’autodisciplina in Il Diritto Industriale [Dir. Ind.] 4/2010, p. 374.
- 9.
The Legislative Decree of 2 August 2007, no. 146 on unfair commercial practices.
- 10.
According to Article 18, paragraph 1.f) of the Consumer Code, a code of conduct is “an agreement or a set of rules which is not imposed by the law, regulations or administrative provisions of a Member State and which defines the conduct of the business that undertakes to comply with such code in relation to one or more commercial practices or one or more business sectors.” Article 18 of the Consumer Code corresponds to Article 2.f) of Directive 2005/29/CE.
- 11.
G. de Cristofaro, A. Zaccaria, Commentario Breve al Diritto dei Consumatori, 2010, p. 125.
- 12.
P. Fabbio, I codici di condotta nella disciplina delle pratiche commerciali sleali, in Giurisprudenza Commerciale, Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile, July–August 2008, p. 707. The legislator’s decision to punish only conduct having the characteristics mentioned is designed to avoid discouraging business operators from adopting codes of conduct.
- 13.
Should the advertising also entail an unfair commercial practice under Article 21.2.b) of the Consumer Code (i.e., “lead[s] or is liable to lead the average consumer to take a commercial decision that he or she would have not taken otherwise”), the advertising could be sanctioned both by the terms of the Consumer Code governing unfair commercial practices and by Legislative Decree no. 145/2007 on misleading advertising. G. de Cristofaro, La disciplina ‘generale’ della pubblicità contenuta nel d. lgs. 2 agosto 2007, n. 145, in G. de Cristofaro, Pratiche commerciali scorrette e Codice del Consumo, 2008, p. 491.
- 14.
L. Bussoli, Responsabilità sociale, codici di condotta e pratiche commerciali sleali, in La responsabilità sociale dell’impresa: idee e prassi, a cura di Perulli A., 2013, p. 172.
- 15.
G. de Cristofaro, La disciplina ‘generale’ della pubblicità contenuta nel d. lgs. 2 agosto 2007, n. 145, in G. de Cristofaro, Pratiche commerciali scorrette e Codice del Consumo, 2008, p. 172.
- 16.
Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato.
- 17.
See Article 27 of the Consumer Code and Article 8 of Legislative Decree 145/2007.
- 18.
According to Article 27, paragraph 2, of the Consumer Code, “The Authority, ex officio or upon the request of any party or organization having an interest, may issue an injunction prohibiting the continuation of the unfair practice….”
- 19.
See Article 11, Directive 2005/29/EC. See also G. Floridia, Il coordinamento fra controllo autodisciplinare e controllo amministrativo delle pratiche sleali, in Dir. Ind. 2/2009, p. 175.
- 20.
A. Ciatti, “Gli strumenti di tutela individuale e collettiva,” in G. de Cristofaro, Pratiche commerciali scorrette e Codice del Consumo, 2008, p. 422.
- 21.
P. Auteri, La disciplina della pubblicità, in Diritto Industriale, Proprietà Intellettuale e concorrenza, 2012, p. 404.
- 22.
G. de Cristofaro, La disciplina ‘generale’ della pubblicità contenuta nel d. lgs. 2 agosto 2007, n. 145, in G. de Cristofaro, Pratiche commerciali scorrette e Codice del Consumo, 2008, p. 516.
- 23.
See Sect. 28.2.3.2. Enforcement by consumers – Unfair Commercial Practices governed by the Consumer Code.
- 24.
L. Bussoli, Responsabilità sociale, codici di condotta e pratiche commerciali sleali, in La responsabilità sociale dell’impresa: idee e prassi, a cura di Perulli A., 2013, p. 175. According to this perspective, competitors are not entitled to enforce a breach of a code of conduct since the Directive provides two parallel systems, one intended to protect consumers and the other intended to protect competitors. Accordingly, the two systems are governed in Italy by two different Decrees and a parallel system, one for protecting consumers (i.e., the provisions relating to misleading practices contained in Legislative Decree no. 146/2007, included in the Consumer Code) and one for protecting competition and competitors on the market (i.e., the provisions on misleading advertising contained in Legislative Decree no. 145/2007). Thus, according to this interpretation, competitors are only entitled to protection according to the misleading advertising legislation and cannot file claims under the unfair practices legislation.
- 25.
P. Auteri, La disciplina della pubblicità, in Diritto Industriale, Proprietà Intellettuale e concorrenza, 2012, p. 384 onwards, in particular p. 403.
- 26.
A. Vanzetti, Manuale di Diritto Industriale, 2009, p. 16.
- 27.
For the criteria applying to the fines imposed by the AGCM, see AGCM decision of 21 August 2009, no. 18782, in Dir. Ind. 2009, p. 378.
- 28.
Article 8, Legislative Decree 145/2007.
- 29.
As mentioned, said procedure applies both to breach of Articles 21 onwards concerning unfair practices and to misleading advertising according to Legislative Decree 145/2007. The proceedings before the AGCM and the corresponding remedies are described in Article 27 of the Consumer Code on unfair commercial practices and Article 8 of the Legislative Decree 145/2007 on misleading advertising.
- 30.
See Sect. 28.2.4.
- 31.
Article 2599 states that “the decision ascertaining the acts of unfair competition will include an injunction preventing their continuation and additional measures designed to eliminate their effects.”
- 32.
Article 2600 states that “if the acts of unfair competition are performed wilfully or negligently, the party who committed them is liable for damages. In such case, the court may order publication of the decision. Having ascertained the acts of unfair competition, negligence is assumed.”
- 33.
A. Vanzetti, Manuale di Diritto Industriale, 2009, p. 129.
- 34.
A. Vanzetti, Manuale di Diritto Industriale, 2009, p. 130.
- 35.
Article 27 of the Consumer Code protects the public interest by defending consumers against misleading practices and upholding fair competition on the market. The remedy of damages is linked to the regulation of unfair competition aimed at protecting private interests. G. de Cristofaro, Commentario Breve al Diritto dei Consumatori, 2010, comment on Article 27, p. 220.
- 36.
See, for example, A. Vanzetti, Manuale di Diritto Industriale, 2009, pp. 20–22, G. Ghidini, Della concorrenza sleale, in Il Codice Civile – Commentario diretto da Piero Schlesinger, p. 453, L.C. Ubertazzi, Commentario breve alle leggi su proprietà intellettuale e concorrenza, 2012, p. 1234.
- 37.
The doubt, also discussed by A. Vanzetti, Manuale di Diritto Industriale, 2009, p. 21, is whether Article 2601 of the Italian Civil Code entails a different type of unfair competition from those concerning conflicts between single undertakings referred to in Article 2598. One interpretation states that Article 2601 of the Civil Code merely allows an organization to bring a single action to protect an interest shared by many producers, instead of having to file many single actions relating to the same violation. Therefore, the organization would act as a sort of representative of the producers. Another interpretation considers the organization as having its own interest, corresponding to the collective interest of the members. According to this second interpretation, the organization is entitled to claim damages only for the violation of its own interest.
- 38.
Corte di Cassazione (Supreme Court), 29 August 1995, no. 9073 in Giurisprudenza Annotata di Diritto Industriale [GADI] 1995, p. 202. Similarly, Court of Appeal of Milan, 8 May 1992, in GADI 1992, p. 617.
- 39.
Corte di Cassazione (Supreme Court), 20 December 1996, no. 11404 in GADI 1996, p. 19.
- 40.
Court of Appeal of Bologna, 26 May 1994, in GADI 1994, p. 752, where the locus standi of the Prosciutto di Parma Consortium, which does not produce the product but performs supervisory activities relating (inter alia) to the correct use of the geographical indication and the collective trademarks managed by it, was taken for granted both by the counterparty and by the Court.
- 41.
Court of Milan, 5 May 2005 in GADI 2005, p. 895; Court of Appeal of Milan, 30 June 1999, in Dir. Ind. 2000, 2, p. 141.
- 42.
The locus standi of foreign associations is specifically contemplated by Article 10-ter/2 of the Paris Convention. Principle confirmed by the case law: Corte di Cassazione (Supreme Court), 15 November 1984, n. 5772, in GADI 1984, p. 80. See also L.C. Ubertazzi, Commentario breve alle leggi su proprietà intellettuale e concorrenza, 2012, p. 2135, A. Vanzetti, Manuale di Diritto Industriale, 2009, p. 22.
- 43.
P. Morara, F. Vella, I codici etici: dalla teoria all’esperienza concreta, in Fondazione Unipolis (a cura di), Governance e responsabilità sociale. Analisi sull’applicazione dei codici etici in Italia, in “I quaderni di Unipolis,” 1, 2009, p. 51.
- 44.
See, for instance, the terms of Article 21.1.c) of the Consumer Code, which defines as misleading practice “a practice containing information which is false or otherwise liable to induce the consumer to a take a commercial decision that he or she would not have taken otherwise, on the basis of: … c) the extent of the business’s commitment, the reasons for the commercial practice and the nature of the sale process, any declaration or sign relating to the promotion or direct or indirect approval of the business or product.” In particular, AGCM has already considered as misleading communication the misuse of expressions such as “environment-friendly” or “100% disposable” and the related marks on the packaging of products (AGCM decision, 11/01/2006, no. 15104, in Giustizia Civile, 2006, 6, p. 1371).
- 45.
Article 11 of the Italian Intellectual Property Code (Legislative Decree of 10 February 2005, no. 30) contains an express exemption to the prohibition on registering a trademark consisting of an indication of the “quality” or “geographical origin” of the product it distinguishes. This kind of trademark, more than noncollective trademarks, has the function of communicating a message to the public (e.g., the quality/geographical origin of the product concerned). G. Sena, Il Diritto dei Marchi, 2007, p. 47.
- 46.
G. Sena, Il Diritto dei Marchi, 2007, p. 51.
- 47.
Court of Modena, 11 March 2010 in GADI 2010, p. 481, which states that marketing of products bearing a mark indicated in an ISO technical standard but not compliant with said standard constitutes unfair competition, as well as misleading advertising. For a similar ruling, see Court of Brescia, 2 December 2008, in GADI 2010, p. 88.
- 48.
G. Ghidini, Della concorrenza sleale, in Il Codice Civile – Commentario diretto da Piero Schlesinger, p. 294.
- 49.
Article 2598, no. 2 of the Civil Code states that “any party that … passes off its own products and business activity as those of a competitor” commits unfair competition.
- 50.
According to Article 27.3 of the Consumer Code and Article 8.2 of Legislative Decree 145/2007 on misleading advertising.
- 51.
According to G. de Cristofaro, L’attuazione della direttiva 2005/29/CE nell’ordinamento italiano: profili generali, in G. de Cristofaro, Pratiche commerciali scorrette e Codice del Consumo, 2008, p. 86, the legislative decision to indicate the AGCM as the sole regulatory authority to impose fines for unfair commercial practices could indeed paralyze the activity of the AGCM if it receives a huge number of requests for intervention against unfair commercial practices.
- 52.
G. Floridia, Il coordinamento fra controllo autodisciplinare e controllo amministrativo delle pratiche sleali, in Dir. Ind. 2/2009, p. 175.
- 53.
L. Bussoli, Responsabilità sociale, codici di condotta e pratiche commerciali sleali, in La responsabilità sociale dell’impresa: idee e prassi, a cura di Perulli A., 2013, p. 163. Similarly, P. Morara, F. Vella, I codici etici: dalla teoria all’esperienza concreta, in Fondazione Unipolis (a cura di), Governance e responsabilità sociale. Analisi sull’applicazione dei codici etici in Italia, in “I quaderni di Unipolis,” 1, 2009, p. 53.
- 54.
P. Morara, F. Vella, I codici etici: dalla teoria all’esperienza concreta, in Fondazione Unipolis (a cura di), Governance e responsabilità sociale. Analisi sull’applicazione dei codici etici in Italia, in “I quaderni di Unipolis,” 1, 2009, p. 51.
- 55.
UNIONCAMERE, Camere di Commercio di Italia, La responsabilità sociale delle imprese e gli orientamenti dei consumatori, 2006, p. 179 onward, available on www.unioncamere.it, where it is stated that consumers are well aware of policies such as social accountability and environmental accountability. Awareness is higher when the policy is accompanied by certification, such as SA 8000.
- 56.
Such as the “Clean Clothes Campaign” (“Campagna Abiti Puliti”) and the “Businesses on Trial” (“Imprese alla Sbarra”) project. Source: http://www.unimondo.org/Guide/Politica/Codici-di-condotta/(desc)/show.
- 57.
L. Bussoli, Responsabilità sociale, codici di condotta e pratiche commerciali sleali, in La responsabilità sociale dell’impresa: idee e prassi, a cura di Perulli A., 2013, p. 163. P. Fabbio, I codici di condotta nella disciplina delle pratiche commerciali sleali, in Giurisprudenza Commerciale, Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile, July–August 2008, p. 730.
- 58.
L. Bussoli, Responsabilità sociale, codici di condotta e pratiche commerciali sleali, in La responsabilità sociale dell’impresa: idee e prassi, a cura di Perulli A., 2013, pp. 175–176. See also F. Ghezzi, Codici di condotta, autodisciplina, pratiche commerciali scorrette. Un rapporto difficile, in Rivista delle Società, 2010, n. 4, p. 680.
- 59.
G. Floridia, Il coordinamento fra controllo autodisciplinare e controllo amministrativo delle pratiche sleali, in Dir. Ind. 2/2009, p. 175.
- 60.
See the comment on this point by G. de Cristofaro, L’attuazione della direttiva 2005/29/CE nell’ordinamento italiano: profili generali, in G. de Cristofaro, Pratiche commerciali scorrette e Codice del Consumo, 2008, p. 92.
- 61.
G. Floridia, Il coordinamento fra controllo autodisciplinare e controllo amministrativo delle pratiche sleali, in Dir. Ind. 2/2009, p. 175. L.C. Ubertazzi, Le PCS ed il futuro dell’autodisciplina, in Dir. Ind. 4/2010, p. 374.
- 62.
G. de Cristofaro, L’attuazione della direttiva 2005/29/CE nell’ordinamento italiano: profili generali, in G. de Cristofaro, Pratiche commerciali scorrette e Codice del Consumo, 2008, p. 91.
- 63.
Article 27.2 of the Consumer Code.
- 64.
For instance, it may be evaluated on a case-by-case basis whether an application for the preliminary investigations laid down by Article 696 and 696-bis of the Italian Civil Procedural Code could be made. If intellectual property rights (such as a trademark) are involved in the breach (for instance, where the breach of the code of conduct includes infringement of the collective trademark associated with said code), it could be evaluated whether an application for a descrizione giudiziale (judicial inspection) aimed at collecting evidence of the infringement and unlawful conduct may be requested on a case-by-case basis.
- 65.
The definition of “agreement” under competition law is set out in Article 2.2. of Statute no. 287/1990, substantially corresponding to the definition provided in Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
- 66.
G. Floridia, Autodisciplina e funzione arbitrale, in Rivista del Diritto Industriale [Riv. Dir. Ind.] 1991, I, p. 5; A. Pedriali, Profili soggettivi dell’autodisciplina pubblicitaria, in Riv. Dir. Ind. 1992, I, p. 136; M.S. Spolidoro, Le sanzioni del codice di autodisciplina pubblicitaria, in Riv. Dir. Ind. 1989, I, p. 58, G. Manfredi, Giurì di autodisciplina, autorità indipendenti e autorità giudiziaria, in Dir. Ind. 1/2011, p. 61. As regards case law, Court of Milan of 22 January 1976, in Riv. Dir. Ind. 1977, II, p. 91, sets out the principles shared by the literature on this topic.
- 67.
Article 4 of Statute 287/1990 and Article 101.3 of the TFEU.
- 68.
Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione), 15 February 1999, no. 1259, in AIDA 1999, p. 407.
- 69.
G. Ghidini, Profili evolutivi del diritto industriale, 2008, p. 182.
- 70.
Statute of 10 October 1990, no. 287, on rules of the protection of the competition and the market.
- 71.
M. Ricolfi, Marchi di servizio, non registrati e collettivi, in Diritto Industriale Proprietà Intellettuale e Concorrenza, 2012, pp. 167–168.
- 72.
G. Olivieri, L’abuso di posizione dominante, in Diritto Industriale Proprietà Intellettuale e Concorrenza, 2012, pp. 481–482.
- 73.
G. Ghidini, Profili evolutivi del diritto industriale, 2008, p. 210.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brugioni, L. (2015). Italy. In: Kobel, P., Këllezi, P., Kilpatrick, B. (eds) Antitrust in the Groceries Sector & Liability Issues in Relation to Corporate Social Responsibility. LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45753-5_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45753-5_28
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-45752-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-45753-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)