10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333
Among the most critical issues in the ongoing doctrine and jurisprudence debate are those that concern (i) employer responsibility for occupational health and safety in connection with new jobs and (ii) emerging risks associated with new ways of performing work. This debate has recently been amplified by the new concept of ‘work environment’, which, according to some authors, now also includes the company’s external environment due to the reform of Articles 9 and 41 of the Constitution. In fact, with the explicit introduction of the obligation to protect the environment and the principle of sustainability in Article 41 of the Constitution, it is appropriate to reflect on the possibility of remodelling the prevention obligations and reinterpreting the employers’ safety obligation in view of sustainability. The paper addresses the issue of the role of the firm in environmental policies: promotion and accountability with the dual perspective of a theoretical analysis and discussion paper. In the wake of the experience already gained by collective bargaining and participation techniques in occupational health and safety, the paper will first look at the extension of the preventive obligation and the related criminal liability to the external environment, and then focus on the new perspectives of negotiated regulation of this obligation.
application/pdf
1561-8048
18333
2
en
Maria Giovannone
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Italian Labour Law e-Journal
workers’ participation
New (work) environments in the wake of the reform of Articles 9 and 41 of the Italian Constitution: what prospects for the employers’ preventive obligations?
Text.Serial.Journal
https://illej.unibo.it/
16
Miscellaneous
2023-12-14
2023-10-27
2023-12-14
2023-12-14
77-99
ILLeJ
Maria Giovannone
2023/12/14
10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333
77
Roma Tre University
1561-8048
2
workers’ participation
en
99
New (work) environments in the wake of the reform of Articles 9 and 41 of the Italian Constitution: what prospects for the employers’ preventive obligations?
https://illej.unibo.it/article/download/18333/17073
16
New (work) environments in the wake of the reform of                                  Italian Labour Law e-Journal
Articles 9 and 41 of the Italian Constitution: what prospects                                Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
for the employers’ preventive obligations?                                                         ISSN 1561-8048
Maria Giovannone                                                    https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333
maria.giovannone@uniroma3.it




    New (work) environments in the wake of the reform
    of Articles 9 and 41 of the Italian Constitution: what
    prospects for the employers’ preventive obligations?
                                             Maria Giovannone*

1. New working environments and new risks. 2. Employer’s liability and new spatial-temporal
coordinates of work performance. 3. Environmental risks and ecological trends in the field
of OHS protection. 3.1 Environment and health in the new Articles 9 and 41 of the Italian
Constitution. 3.2 Environmental protection, work organisation and workers’ participation.
4. External risks and the new “work circumstances”. 5. Concluding reflections.


                                                         Abstract

    Among the most critical issues in the ongoing doctrine and jurisprudence debate, are those that
    concern (i) employer responsibility for occupational health and safety in connection with new
    jobs and (ii) emerging risks associated with new ways of performing work. This debate has
    recently been amplified by the new concept of ‘work environment’ which, according to some
    authors, now also includes the company’s external environment due to the reform of Articles 9
    and 41 of the Constitution. In fact, in the face of the constitutional reform, it is appropriate to
    reflect on the possibility of remodelling the prevention obligations and reinterpreting the
    employers’ safety obligation. The paper addresses the issue of the role of the firm in
    environmental policies: promotion and accountability with the dual perspective of a theoretical
    analysis and discussion paper. In the wake of the experience gained by collective bargaining and
    participation techniques in occupational health and safety, the paper will first look at the
    extension of the preventive obligation and the related criminal liability to the external
    environment. Then it focuses on the new perspectives of negotiated regulation of this obligation.

    Keywords: Environmental Risk Factors; Occupational Health and Safety; Employer’s Liability;
    Workers’ Participation.




*Researcher in Labour Law (art. 24, co. 3, lett. b), L. n. 240/2010) at Roma Tre University and Adjunct
Professor in Social Security Law a Global Economy and Labour Rights. This essay has been submitted to a
double-blind peer review.
    Maria Giovannone                                                                            Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                       Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                                       Section: Miscellaneous




1. New working environments and new risks.

The protection of health and safety in the workplace has been characterised by an important
regulatory framework brought into the Italian system1 by Legislative Decree No. 81 of 2008.
The Testo Unico di Salute e Sicurezza (The Consolidated Occupational Health and Safety Act),
however, still suffers from a significant number of implementation measures that have
remained on paper, and relatively unsatisfactory effectiveness. In fact, as correctly observed,
over the years the doctrine has played an important role in interpreting and systematising the
vast legislation in force on the subject, as filtered through case law and collective bargaining
applications. Otherwise, the Testo Unico has not yet contributed to the complete
rationalisation of the matter, “opening up new profiles of criticality and interpretative
uncertainty”.2
Among the most critical issues around which a wide-ranging debate has been opened for
some time is the employer’s liability3 arising from failure to comply with prevention
regulations, especially given non-standard employment relationships, new ways of
performing work, and emerging risks. More recently, the question links the evolution of the
very concept of the ‘working environment’ following the reform of Articles 9 and 41 of the
Constitution,4 which expressly introduced environmental protection into our legal system.
As is well known, over time, the employer’s position of guarantee 5 has led to the adoption
of interpretative and regulatory solutions that take new models of work and business
organisation as well as new risks into account. On the one hand, this has led to a progressive
expansion of employer liability (especially by case law). On the other, this has forced a
refinement of regulatory techniques in prevention, given that the effectiveness of the legal
standard is indispensable and requires dealing with a constantly evolving risk framework.
Precisely for this reason, fifteen years after the entry into force of the Testo Unico and in
light of the regulatory and jurisprudential developments, it is necessary to reflect on
regulatory solutions that allow for alignment between regulatory provisions and concrete



1 For an examination of the evolution of the prevention legislation see ex multis Natullo G., Il quadro normativo
dal Codice civile al Codice della sicurezza sul lavoro. Dalla Massima sicurezza (astrattamente) possibile alla Massima sicurezza
ragionevolmente (concretamente) applicata?, in I Working Papers di Olympus, 39, 2014; Lepore M., La nuova normativa:
dalla prevenzione tecnologica alla sicurezza di tipo organizzativo, in Tiraboschi M., Fantini L. (eds.), Il testo unico della
salute e sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro dopo il correttivo (d. lgs. n. 106/2009), Giuffrè, Milan, 2009, 49 ff.; Fantini L.,
Giuliani A., Salute e sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro. Le norme, l'interpretazione e la prassi, Giuffrè, Milan, 2015, 1 ff.
2 Thus Tiraboschi M. in the introduction to the literature review Corvino A., Giovannone M., Tiraboschi M.,

Organizzazione del lavoro e nuove forme di impiego. Partecipazione dei lavoratori e buone pratiche in relazione alla salute e
sicurezza sul lavoro, Centro Studi Internazionali e Comparati “Marco Biagi”, 2008.
3 For a review of the debate between labour law lawyers and criminalists see Giovannone M. (ed.), La

responsabilità civile e penale del datore di lavoro nel contesto dell’emergenza sanitaria, Conference Proceedings, Aracne
Editore, Rome, 2021; Giovannone M., La responsabilità civile e penale del datore di lavoro nel contesto dell’emergenza
sanitaria, in Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 3, 2021, 577-600.
4 By Constitutional Law no. 1 of 11 February 2022.
5 Dovere S., La sicurezza del lavoro tra prevenzione e repressione, in Natullo G., Saracini P. (eds.), Salute e sicurezza sul

lavoro. Regole, organizzazione e partecipazione, in Quaderni della rivista Diritti Lavori Mercati, 3, 2017, 85, according to
whom the locution “posizione di garanzia” identifies the ownership of tasks to protect a legal asset, either
through the control of a source of danger or through the direct protection of the asset.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                                 78
    Maria Giovannone                                                                               Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                          Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                                          Section: Miscellaneous




work dynamics. This, taking into account the new working environments and space-time
contexts in which work performance takes place.
The urgency of this reflection has been prompted by several recent and contingent factors:
(i) the Covid-196 pandemic as an exogenous risk factor, (ii) the increasing use of agile and
highly digitalised work, and (iii) the explicit introduction of environmental protection within
the Constitution.7
Taken as a whole, these dynamics inevitably shift the focus of the subject of prevention8
from known and surveyed risks (and in any case physically referable to either the company,
the production unit or the production cycle), to the external risks of public health,
environmental protection and those risk factors that are not directly available to the
employer.
Consequently, one must ask oneself to what extent it is possible to extend the preventive
obligation to common and not specifically work-related risks. As well as this extension may
include risks caused by the performance of services that escape the employer’s power of
organisation and control in places that are not legally available to him. Similarly, one must
ask oneself how far the prevention obligation can be extended into the external environment,
beyond the confines of the company organisation.
The boundaries of employer liability must therefore be analysed within the new spatial-
temporal coordinates of work performance and beyond the classic perimeter of business
activity... Here it becomes important to analyse the progressive extension of the
operativeness of Article 2087 of the Civil Code9 and of the cases of civil and criminal offence
to which compliance with the rule is entrusted.
Therefore, the problem that arises is not to over-analyse the balance between the
constitutional values at stake (health, work, environment, and freedom of enterprise), but to
understand whether and how these changes really affect the management of preventive
obligations and the responsibility of the company and the employer.10

6 On the orientation of the jurisprudence on the subject of civil liability, also with reference to Covid-19, see
the comment by Giubboni S., I presupposti della responsabilità civile del datore per infortunio sul lavoro nella nomofilachia
della Suprema Corte (con una chiosa sul risarcimento del danno da Covid-19) (Corte di cassazione, sezione lavoro, 19 giugno
2020, n. 12041), in Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 3, 2020, 669-689.
7 By Constitutional Law 11 February 2022 no. 1, recante Modifiche agli articoli 9 e 41 della Costituzione in materia di

tutela dell’ambiente.
8 Natullo G., La sicurezza del lavoro, oggi. Regole e prassi tra vecchi paradigmi e nuovi modelli organizzativi, in Natullo G.,

Saracini P. (eds.) Salute e sicurezza sul lavoro. Regole, organizzazione e partecipazione, in Quaderni della rivista Diritti Lavori
Mercati, 3, 2017, 21, who points out that the central issue is the correct balancing of opposing requirements: of
identifying and ascertaining responsibilities for the implementation of prevention obligations on the one hand;
of guaranteeing, on the other hand, a reasonable certainty of effective fulfilment of such obligations, with equally
reasonable exclusion of forms of “objective” liability in the event of injury to workers’ health.
9 On the general profiles of the safety obligation pursuant to Article 2087 of the Italian Civil Code, Cass. 12

February 1997, no. 3439; Cass. 30 November 2007, no. 44791; Cass. 7 June 2013, no. 14468; Cass. 5 January
2016, no. 34; Cass. 21 April 2017, no. 10145. On Article 2087 c.c. as an accessory obligation, as a collateral
provision with respect to the duty of diligence, fairness and good faith that govern the employment relationship,
Mesiti D., L’ambito di applicazione della tutela prevenzionistica ed antinfortunistica e, segnatamente, dell'art. 2087 c.c., p. 322,
in Il lavoro nella giurisprudenza, 4, 2017, 322.
10 One thinks, for example, of the compulsory training activities for employers, workers, RLS, managers and

supervisors governed by the State-Regions Agreements on the subject in implementation of Articles 34, 36 and
37 of Legislative Decree No. 81/2008. The national approach is partially outdated, in terms of the formalistic

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                                     79
  Maria Giovannone                                                                                   Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                            Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                                            Section: Miscellaneous




These new dynamics make it increasingly difficult to maintain the consolidated evidentiary
schemes with which judges assess employers’ actual performance of their obligation to
prevent accidents. These critical issues are relevant both in judicial venues and in the presence
of the adoption and effective implementation of an organisation and management model
(under Legislative Decree No. 231/2001 or Article 30 of Legislative Decree No. 81/2008).
Similarly to what has happened in the past on the subject of asbestos exposure,11 the time is
perhaps ripe to reconsider the effectiveness of the traditional regulatory instruments of
employer liability. The objective is to valorise new solutions shared between the parties
(including social partners at national and company level), to be subsequently subjected to
“validation” in the competent institutional venues.12 This could ensure a better adaptation of
preventive liability to risk factors for which the scientific laws of coverage are not yet able to
support the causal link between employer default and occupational injury or disease with
absolute certainty, and beyond any reasonable doubt.
The debate on the “maximum safety technologically possible”13 is in fact not new, but how
this principle holds up in the face of the impact of new risks and guarantees the exact
fulfilment of the prevention obligation has been a controversial issue for some time. This is
all the more so in a work environment that is increasingly larger and more removed from the
control and direct legal availability of the employer.


2. Employer’s liability and new spatio-temporal coordinates of work.

   The phenomena connected to the new organisation of work and the new risks had been
discussed at length, showing the need to combine the legal framework with the changed

approach imparted to the teaching methods. It is confirmed by the intent of the Legislator with d. l. no.
146/2021 (converted, with amendments, by Law no. 215/2021) by which it was envisaged that by 30 June
2022, the Permanent Conference for Relations between the State, the Regions and the Autonomous Provinces
of Trento and Bolzano should adopt an Agreement with which to merge, revise and amend the implementation
agreements on training.
11 Tullini P., La responsabilità civile per esposizione lavorativa all'amianto: obbligo di sicurezza, limiti dell'esonero assicurativo

e risarcibilità del danno, in Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 1, 2016, 41-64; Fabiani M., Bonanni E., Il danno da
amianto. Profili risarcitori e tutela medico-legale, Giuffré, Milan, 2013. See Cass. 25 September 2001, no. 5716; Cass.
S.U., 10 July 2002, no. 30328; Cass. civ.n24 January 2014, no. 1477.
12 Lambertucci L., L’obbligazione di sicurezza del datore di lavoro tra responsabilità civile e tutela precauzionale: un possibile

ruolo della contrattazione collettiva, in Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro, 1, 2021, 271-272, according to whom the
Legislator discounts the possibility that collective autonomy may intervene in safety matters in two different
spheres, achieving a twofold result: accompanying the interpretative effort of jurisprudence in referring to
so-called unnamed safety measures; and identifying, at the same time, the scope of application of (civil) liability
under the terms of the collective agreement. Natullo G., La gestione della pandemia nei luoghi di lavoro, in Lavoro e
diritto, 1, 2022, 91, for whom collective bargaining can play an important complementary and supplementary
role with respect to the sources from which the “mandatory” standards of protection emanate. In fact, at
the various levels (national, territorial, company), it can fill spaces left empty by technical standards, in this by
complementing (or being productive of) good practices and codes of conduct.
13 Natullo G., nt. (1), 8, according to whom the three parameters (peculiarities of work, experience and
technique) assign to art. 2087 c.c. the character of a general clause and a function of permanent adaptation of
the system to the underlying socio-economic reality. In fact, the latter has a much more pronounced dynamism
than that of the legal system, linked to necessarily complex and slow procedures and schemes of legal
production. Cfr. also Buoso S., Principio di prevenzione e sicurezza sul lavoro, Giappichelli, Turin, 2020.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                                       80
     Maria Giovannone                                                                             Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                         Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                                         Section: Miscellaneous




organisational context. This is clearly underlined by numerous writings in the 1980s and
1990s,14 which later merged into projects to reform the legal framework.15 From a prevention
perspective, it was pointed out that the work organisation has not been given due weight in
our legal system because of a misrepresentation of the application of Article 2087 of the Civil
Code, given that it was applied to the criminal liability of employers. On the contrary, the
active part of the rule requires the employer, as the head of the company, to adopt all the
measures that, “according to the particular nature of the work, experience and technique, are
necessary to protect the physical integrity and moral personality of the employee”. It has
remained a dead letter, even through the regulation by collective bargaining for a more exact
definition of the safety obligation. However, at a distance of at least twenty years, the
overcoming of the Fordist production and prevention model,16 the dematerialisation of work
environments and the entrusting of organisational powers to digitalized systems reintroduce
the question of the balance between employer responsibility, the legal availability of
workplaces, and the external environment.
   In this regard, very useful are the reflections solicited at the time of Covid-19 by Article
29- bis of the so-called Decreto Liquidità (Liquidity Decree),17 as a first attempt to mitigate ex
ante the employer’s personal liability. This was effective in civil law, less so in criminal law.
But more systematic solicitations come from the European Strategic Framework on Health and
Safety at Work 2021-2027,18 which defines the key actions planned by the Union to improve
the health and safety of European workers in the coming years.19
   The framework is part of the broader implementation plan - announced in 202120 - of the
European Pillar of Social Rights and outlines three transversal objectives: (i) managing
changes in the workplace, especially prompted by green, digital and demographic transitions
(“change”), (ii) improving accident and illness prevention (“prevention”), (iii) and improving
responses to possible health crises such as Covid-19 (“preparedness”).
   The first objective takes note of the changes that are taking place in work organisation
and business models, under the banner of flexibility and a new conception of the workplace.
These changes were particularly driven by the restrictions decided in EU in the darkest

14 Smuraglia C., Regulatory framework and implementation experiences in the field of occupational safety and hygiene: new
perspectives for coordination and urgent interventions, in Rivista giuridica del lavoro e della previdenza sociale, 2, 2007, 7-14.
15 Santoni F., Health protection in atypical work, in Montuschi L. (ed.), Environment, health and safety, Giappichelli,

Turin, 1997; Ghera E., Labor law, Cacucci, Bari, 1996, 157, and, above all, Montuschi L., Right to health and work
organization, Franco Angeli, Milan, 1989, 78, are particularly sensitive to the need to combine the regulatory
framework with the changed organizational context.
16 On this topic, see the recent reflections of Tiraboschi M., Nuovi modelli della organizzazione del lavoro e nuovi rischi,
in Diritto della sicurezza sul lavoro, 1, 2021, 136-154 and of Pascucci P., Note sul futuro del lavoro salubre e sicuro… e
sulle norme sulla sicurezza di rider & co, in Diritto della sicurezza sul lavoro, 1, 2019, 37-57 recently taken up in the context
of the UGGCI National Conference on 9-11 December 2022, with the report entitled La salute e la sicurezza sul
lavoro tra innovazioni organizzative e sostenibilità.
17 Decree-Law No. 23/2020 converted, with amendments, by Law No. 40 of 5 June 2020.
18 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic

and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. EU Strategic Framework for Health and Safety at
Work 2021-2027 - Safety and Health at Work in a Changing World of Work of 28 June 2021.
19 Ales E., Occupational Health and Safety: a European and Comparative Legal Perspective, in WP C.D.S.L.E.
“Massimo D’Antona”, 12, 2015.
20 Following the proclamation of the Pillar in 2017, the ‘Action Plan on the European Pillar of Social Rights’ was

finally published in March 2021 with the European Commission’s Communication COM(2021) 102 (Brussels,
4.3.2021).

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                                   81
     Maria Giovannone                                                               Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                           Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                           Section: Miscellaneous




moments of the pandemic and prompted by the green and digital revolution planned in the
EU Green New Deal,21 the EU Digital Strategy22 and the Industrial Strategy for Europe.23
    Based on these premises, the project to innovate the European legislative framework on
the subject, made up of the framework directive and the twenty-four specific directives
derived from it, can be explained. At the heart of the implementation approach of the entire
Framework are: (i) the use of strong social dialogue, (ii) rapid and concrete decision-making,
implementation and monitoring processes, and (iii) the development of awareness-raising
activities and mobilisation of European funds for investments in prevention in the company,
including through emergency tools. At the national level, the Commission has invited each
Member State to review their internal strategies on health and safety at work for the purpose
of aligning themselves with the perspectives of the Framework. Therefore, it could represent
a decisive impetus for the definition of a national strategy on the matter which, at the
moment, our country does not have.
    Moreover, at the 110th International Labour Conference24 a long-awaited decision was
taken to elevate the right to a safe and healthy working environment to the status of a
fundamental principle and right to work. Specifically, on 10 June 2022, in a plenary session
delegates adopted a resolution to add health and safety protection at work among the
fundamental rights of workers (so-called core labour standards). This is of decisive importance
since only “core” rights must be respected by all member states of the Organisation
regardless of the ratification of the relevant ILO Conventions.25 Thus, with the conference
decision, protecting health and safety at work will constitute the fifth category of
fundamental rights. This new status means that, in turn, the relevant ILO Conventions26 will
become “fundamental”.
    Therefore, there is no doubt that European and international institutions are directly
calling for a widening of the subjective and objective scope of application of preventative
legislation and, indirectly, for a revision of the regulatory mechanisms of preventative
liability.




21 Comunication of the Commission (COM(2019) 640 final, Bruxelles, 11.12.2019).
22 Comunication of the Commission (COM(2020) 67 final, Bruxelles, 19.2.2020).
23 Comunication of the Commission (COM(2020) 102 final, Bruxelles, 10.3.2020).
24 Held in Geneva from 27 May to 11 June, it is considered one of the most important institutional appointments

of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), so much so that it is also referred to as the “World Labour
Parliament”.
25 It is recalled that the fundamental rights of workers were adopted in 1998 and, so far, are: freedom of

association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; the elimination of all forms of
forced or compulsory labour; the effective abolition of child labour; and the elimination of discrimination in
respect of employment and occupation.
26 Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155) and Promotional Framework Convention for

Safety and Health at Work, 2006 (No. 187).

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                    82
     Maria Giovannone                                                                                Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                            Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                                            Section: Miscellaneous




3. Environmental risks and ecological trends in the field of OHS protection.
3.1. Environmental and health in the new Articles 9 and 41 of the Italian Constitution.

    As mentioned above, among the most problematic aspects of this debate are those that
emerged in the aftermath of the introduction of environmental protection into Articles 9 and
41 of the Constitution.27
    In particular, the question arose as to whether, and to what extent, the obligation to
protect health and safety at work must also concern the environment outside the company
organisation. This would transfer the traditional employer preventive obligations also in this
sphere completely outside the company organisation. The question arises above all with the
new wording of Article 41(2) of the Constitution. It now provides that private economic
initiative may not be carried out “in contrast with social utility or in such a way as to cause damage
to health, the environment, safety, freedom and human dignity”. The following paragraph 3 provides
that “The law shall determine the appropriate programmes and controls so that public and private economic
activity may be directed and coordinated for social and environmental purposes”. On the other hand, art.
9, par. 3, strictly connects the environmental protection purposes to the “interest of the future
generations”.
    To answer the specific prevention question, it is first necessary to evaluate the legal value
impact of the constitutional amendment.
    Debate on the appropriateness of explicit inclusion of the pillars of sustainability in the
constitutional text is certainly not new,28 just as climate change has clearly been forcing radical
adaptations in many legal spheres on the “Just Transition” track.29 In particular, after several
failed attempts,30 the constitutional amendment has an historic importance because it was
conceived in response to the strong investment made by the European institutions in the
ecological transition (Next Generation EU). On the other hand, since the very early nineties
many Member States of the United Nations - 67 out of 193 - have made formal changes to
their constitutional provisions in order to introject the concept of sustainability. Especially,
these adaptations followed the definition of sustainable development introduced in 1987 by
the Brundtland Commission’s “Our Common Future” report.31
    It is precisely the labour and trade union community32 that can be counted among the
primary sources of forging ecological consciousness precisely because of its ability to urge

27 By Constitutional Law No. 1 of 11 February 2022 on Amendments to Articles 9 and 41 of the Constitution on
Environmental Protection.
28 On this point, the reconnaissance of both the labour profiles of the debate made by Cagnin V., Diritto del

lavoro e sviluppo sostenibile, CEDAM, Padova, 2018, and that of the economic profiles developed by Giovannini
E., L’utopia sostenibile, Laterza, Bari, 2018, is very interesting.
29 Doorey D. J., Just Transitions Law: Putting Labour Law to Work on Climate Change, in Journal of Environmental Law

and Practice, 30, 2, 201 ff.; Centamore G., Una just transition per il diritto del lavoro, in Lavoro e Diritto, 1, 2022, 129-
145.
30 Among all, Salvemini L., Dal cambiamento climatico alla modifica della Costituzione: i passi per la tutela del futuro (non

solo nostro), in Federalismi.it, 20, 2021, 78 ff.
31 On this topic, Groppi T., La dimensione costituzionale della sostenibilità: la sfida dell’effettività, in Lavoro e Diritto, 3,

2023, 459-472.
32 Barca S., On working-class environmentalism: a historical and transnational overview, in Interface, 4, 2, 61 ff.; Giovannone

M., Le nuove dinamiche della contrattazione collettiva per la Just Transition: prospettive regolative per la convergenza tra interessi
economici, sociali e ambientali, in Rivista Giuridica del Lavoro e della Previdenza Sociale, 4, 2021, 637-658.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                                       83
     Maria Giovannone                                                                             Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                         Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                                         Section: Miscellaneous




the adoption of forms of regulation to protect the environment inside and outside the
workplace.
    As a result, sustainable development is progressively affecting the value conception of
social and labour standards to the point that environmental law and labour law are often united
by similar aims of protection against the externalisation of the economic activities’ costs.33
The link between productive activity and ecosystem has fueled the economic-legal debate on
Environmental, Social and Governmental Compliance, as a parameter for measuring the financial
reliability of multinational companies. It is assessed taking into account the environmental
impact of the respective activities34 and the adoption of tools of Corporate Social
Responsibility35 in the context traced by the multiple multilevel sources. The reference goes
to the European Commission Communication of 2 July 2002 on Corporate Social
Responsibility, the United Nations Global Compact, the OECD Guidelines for
Multinational Enterprises and the ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning
Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy.36
    The new formulation of paragraphs 2 and 3, Article 41 of the Constitution would seem
to confirm this. It has been said that the new wording of Article 41 of the Constitution finally
implements what has long been anticipated by constitutional jurisprudence37 and doctrine: a
reinterpretation of Article 2087 of the Civil Code to include the obligation to prevent
disasters and accidents that may affect communities and the external environment.38

33 Supiot A., Homo faber: continuità e rotture, in Honneth A., Sennet R., Supiot A., Perché lavoro?, Feltrinelli, Milan,
2020. According to the Author, the organization of work and the ecological footprint are two sides of the same
coin.
34 For a critical-reconstructive framework of ESG in the economic field, Sychenko E., Labour Rights and

International Labour Standards in the ESG Agenda, in Italian Labour Law e-Journal, 16, 1, 2023, 135-148; Huang D.,
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) activity and firm performance: A review and consolidation, in Accounting & finance,
61, 1, 2021, 335-360; Abhayawansa S., Tyagi Sh., Sustainable Investing: The Black Box of Environmental, Social, and
Governance (ESG) Ratings, in The Journal of Wealth Management, 24, 1, 2021, 49-54; Meaney M. E., Private Corporations
and Environmental Social Governance: An Uneven Response, in Fulfilling the Sustainable Development Goals, Routledge,
London, 2021, 437-438.
35 For a critical-reconstructive framework of CSR in the economic field, Baraibar-Diez E., Odriozola M., CSR

Committees and Their Effect on ESG Performance in UK, France, Germany, and Spain, in Sustainability, 2019, 11, 18,
5077; Gillan S. L., Koch A., Starks L. T., Firms and social responsibility: A review of ESG and CSR research in corporate
finance, in Journal of Corporate Finance, 66, 2021, 101889. For an analysis of the value and the different declinations
of CSR in the legal field, Gottardi D., CSR da scelta unilaterale datoriale a oggetto di negoziazione collettiva: la responsabilità
sociale contrattualizzata, in Guarriello F., Stanzani C. (eds.), Sindacato e contrattazione nelle multinazionali. Dalla
normativa internazionale all'analisi empirica, Franco Angeli, Milan, 2018, 58-75. Among all, also, Perulli A. (ed.), La
responsabilità sociale delle imprese: idee e prassi, Il Mulino, Bologna, 2013; Tullini P., Lavoro e responsabilità sociale
dell’impresa, Zanichelli, Bologna, 2006; Giovannone M., La tutela dei labour standards nella catena globale del valore,
Aracne editrice, Rome, 2019.
36 Among all, for a framework, cfr. Brino V., Perulli A., Diritto Internazionale del Lavoro, Giappichelli, Turin, 2023.
37 Corte Cost. 26 July 1993, n. 365; Corte Cost. 20 May 1998, n. 196; Corte Cost. 6 June 2001, n. 190; Corte

Cost. 8 March 2006, n. 116; Corte Cost. 9 May 2013, n. 85 and Corte Cost. 23 March 2018, n. 58.
38 On the possibility of considering the internal and external space of the company as two faces of the same

reality, widely, Perulli A., Lyon-Caen A., Vers un droit du travail écologique, in Revue de droit du travail, Juillet-Août
2022, 91-95; Martelloni F., I benefici condizionati come tecniche promozionali nel Green New Deal, in Lavoro e Diritto, 2,
2022, 293-310; Buoso S., Lassandari A., Martelloni F., Presentazione, Il tema. Lavoro e ambiente nell’Antropocene: il
problema e il sistema, in Lavoro e Diritto, 2, 2022, 3-6; Lassandari A., Il lavoro nella crisi ambientale, in Lavoro e Diritto,
10, 2022, 7-27; Tomassetti P., Diritto del lavoro e ambiente, ADAPT University Press, Bergamo, 2018, 175; contra
Buoso S., Sicurezza sul lavoro, ambiente e prevenzione: disciplina positiva e dilemmi regolativi, in Lavoro e diritto, 2, 2022,
279, according to whom the Art. 2087 c.c., “opening and closing” article of the system, invests it with the

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                                    84
  Maria Giovannone                                                                                Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                         Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                                         Section: Miscellaneous




    This observation strengthens the thesis according to which the new constitutional
provision formally takes note of values already existing in living law: indeed, the new wording
of the Article 41 continues to propose an obsolete version of the concept of the environment
as an antagonistic interest to economic activity. Otherwise, it misses the opportunity to give
a modern twist to the way of understanding the limits that govern the exercise of this activity,
and to orient it towards a human-centered production. In this logic, the absence of references
to the precautionary principle (well present in EU law) and the lack of an explicit reference
to the need to pursue sustainable development should be seen.39
    Consequently, we wonder about the impact that the reform may have on the work and
contents of the rulings of constitutional judges and common judges, in civil and criminal
cases. In particular, we refer to their interpretation of the prevention rules to be applied to
the case concrete in a way that complies with the new constitutional provisions in Article 41.
In fact, it appears necessary to understand how these new formulas affect the guarantee
positions and subjective rights of workers, taking into account the very broad and
programmatic formulations of the rules dealing with the matter.
    Thus, once again, the key rule of Article 2087 c.c. and the assessment of the contractual
(and extra-contractual) responsibilities in face of its non-compliance come into play, as well
as the assessment of any criminal liability.
    Looking at environmental protection as a insurmountable limit to the exercise of free
economic initiative appears unpersuasive in light of a careful reading of the provisions of the
Testo Unico. Just as the automatic expansion of the interpretative margins of the prevention
obligation40 to the external environment is also unconvincing.
    Thus arguing, even the virtuous pairing of environment and work ends up inappropriately
extending the field of application of the employer’s guarantee position outwards.41
    There is no doubt that the constitutional amendment emphasizes the “circular health”
paradigm already inherent to the prevention system outlined by Legislative Decree no.


arduous task of bringing the custody of environmental assets into the context of the employer’s security debt.
For the A., the Art. 2087 c.c. still represents a regulatory basis “capable of ensuring automatic adaptation to the
prevention system, undermined by technological progress”; however, it remains that its teleological orientation
is clearly and literally aimed “to protect the physical integrity and moral personality of the workers”: the
conversion and recycling of this finalistic orientation for extended purposes of protection of public health and
the environment it seems far beyond its potential, risking configuring a non-secondary interpretative forcing.
39 Pinardi R., Iniziativa economica, lavoro ed ambiente alla luce della recente riforma costituzionale degli artt. 9 e 41 Cost., in

Diritto della Sicurezza sul Lavoro, 1, 2023, 21-34. On the topic also Morrone A., La Costituzione del lavoro e
dell’ambiente. Per un nuovo contratto sociale, in Giornale di Diritto del Lavoro e delle Relazioni Industriali, 4, 2022, 526.
40 In these terms Buoso S., nt. (38), 277; Buoso S., nt. (13), 126.
41 On the appropriateness of such an extension, among many Caruso B., Del Punta R., Treu T., Manifesto per un

diritto del lavoro sostenibile, «Centre for the Study of European Labour Law» (CSDLE) “Massimo D'Antona”, 20
May 2020, p. 37, for whom there is no doubt that the growing sensitivity to environmental issues is causing
obsolescence of the distinction between the working environment and the surrounding territory, which only
reaffirms the appropriateness of that integrated approach to the three sustainabilities. Pascucci P., Modelli
organizzativi e tutela dell’ambiente interno ed esterno dell’impresa, in Lavoro e diritto, 2, 2022, 339, while not accepting the
proposed extension of the prevention obligation, nevertheless notes the “circularity” of risks for workers and
for the people who live “around” the company. However, it seems increasingly less credible that labour law
can continue to deal only with the specific protection of the internal environment, shirking the more general
challenge of environmental sustainability.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                                    85
     Maria Giovannone                                                                       Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                   Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                                   Section: Miscellaneous




81/2008. In fact, this view focuses attention on the permeability between production
organization and the environment in a broad sense, urging an integrated and holistic
approach to the topic of internal and external risks prevention. Furthermore, this appeal is
particularly relevant in new production scenarios in which the very concepts of organization
and workplace have become increasingly fluid. Just as it is clear that already in the 1978
Health reform (which established the National Health Service), a global concept of “health”
was validated, to be expressed “senza variazioni di sostanza in tutti i luoghi in cui si svolge e
si completa la personalità di ogni cittadino”.42 It is no coincidence that the attribution to the
local health authorities of the responsibility for supervising workplace safety finds its
foundation in the unification of the protection of good health in the natural context of the
individual’s life and work.
    However, evaluating the specific employer responsibilities, it is necessary to carefully read
the provisions of the Consolidated Occupational Health and Safety Act which have clear
connections with the environmental issue. In particular, it is necessary to evaluate to what
extent the “environment – work” combination can project the field of application of the
employer’s guarantee position outside the organization of the company, and of the
contractual safety obligation pursuant to Art. 2087 c.c.43 In this way, the non-contractual
liability of the employer would be extended beyond the limits already crossed by
constitutional jurisprudence relating to the art. 2043 c.c. In this sense, it is a question of
testing the validity of the principles of specificity and legality of criminal liability with
reference to common or totally exogenous risk factors.
    In this logic, it is possible to identify “tracce di tutela comune di salute e ambiente” (common
health and environmental protection traces)44 in the general framework of Legislative Decree
No. 81/2008. But it is not possible to attribute the legal foundation of a punctual integrated
prevention system to them.45 On closer inspection, Article 2(n) of the Consolidation Act
defines the concept of prevention as “il complesso delle disposizioni o misure necessarie anche secondo
la particolarità del lavoro, l’esperienza e la tecnica, per evitare o diminuire i rischi professionali nel rispetto
della salute della popolazione e dell’integrità dell’ambiente esterno” (the set of provisions or measures
that are also necessary - according to the particular nature of the work, experience and
technique – in order to avoid or reduce occupational risks while respecting the health of
the population and the integrity of the external environment). However, this norm has
introduced a provision that is more programmatic than prescriptive in nature.46

42  “Without substantial changes in all those workplaces in which the workers’ personality and dignity is
developed” (my translation). Cfr. Pascucci P., Angelini L., Lazzari C., I “sistemi” di vigilanza e di controllo nel diritto
della salute e sicurezza sul lavoro, in Lavoro e diritto, 4, 2015, 621.
43 On the opportunity, Caruso B., Del Punta R., Treu T., nt. (41), 37; Pascucci P., nt. (41).
44 References to the relevance of the external environment in Legislative Decree No. 81/2008 are contained in

Article 2(n), Article 18(1)(q), Article 46(1) and Article 256(3). Interesting, in doctrine is the position of Pascucci
P., (43), 338, according to whom the intertwining of the company’s internal and external environment is not
only found in Legislative Decree no. 81/08, but “in the opposite sense” also in the main legislative decrees
dealing with environmental law. For the author, references to protecting workers’ health and safety also emerge
in Legislative Decree no. 152/06. Furthermore, the circularity between the need to protect the internal and
external environment is even more perceptible in Legislative Decree no. 105/15, which implemented directive
2012/18/EU on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances.
45 P. Pascucci, nt. (43), 343.
46 B. Caruso, R. Del Punta, T. Treu, nt. (41), 37; P. Pascucci, nt. (43), 271.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                            86
     Maria Giovannone                                                                              Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                          Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                                          Section: Miscellaneous




    Although more stringent in its literal wording, the same Article 18(1)(q) appears to be less
decisive for the purposes of extending the safety obligation. Among the employer’s and
manager’s obligations, it includes “prendere appropriati provvedimenti per evitare che le misure tecniche
adottate possano causare rischi per la salute della popolazione o deteriorare l’ambiente esterno verificando
periodicamente la perdurante assenza di rischio” (taking appropriate measures to prevent the
technical measures adopted from causing risks to the health of the population or
deterioration of the external environment by periodically verifying the continued absence of
risk). The same reflections apply to the subsequent Articles 46, paragraph 1 47 and 256,
paragraph 3.48 These provisions are of a more prescriptive nature and are accompanied by
the necessary sanctioning apparatus. However, they do not determine a direct and absolute
obligation on the employer to protect the environment in terms of prevention. In fact, these
provisions appear designed to prevent the negative externalities of the prevention obligation
or to technically coordinate specialised OSH obligations pertaining (fire prevention and those
against the dispersion of asbestos in the air) with the protection of the external environment.
However, there is a clear awareness of the diversity of the two values at stake.
    If the textual provisions of Legislative Decree no. 81/2008 are not sufficient to resolve
the issue, once again we must return to thinking about the primordial ratio of the Article 2087
c.c. Indeed, it is possible to start from the notion of prevention and protection obligation
contained therein, although extensively interpreted in the face of increasingly permeable and
uncertain company boundaries.
    The active recipients of the Article 2087 c.c. are in fact the workers of the company (and
not the citizens). Also, the responsibility for its violation remains primarily of a contractual
nature, presupposing the existence of an employment contract. Otherwise, if the company
assumes responsibility towards the external environment, the regulatory basis of this
responsibility cannot be Article 2087 c.c. and should rather be sought in the specific
environmental discipline. Nor does it seem to be possible to envisage an extensive
application of the prerequisites of non-contractual preventive liability pursuant to Article
2043 c.c. In fact, in the framework of our prevention system, this rule complements the
contractual one and does not operate autonomously and separately.
    Furthermore, the use of the precautionary principle through the introduction of
safeguards suitable for avoiding crimes could be encouraged, alongside the principle of
prevention of “neminem laedere” (Article 2043 c.c.). However, even more so, the legal basis of
the protections cannot reside in Article 2087 c.c. as such.49


47 According to which “la prevenzione incendi è la funzione di preminente interesse pubblico, di esclusiva
competenza statuale, diretta a conseguire, secondo criteri applicativi uniformi sul territorio nazionale, gli
obiettivi di sicurezza della vita umana, di incolumità delle persone e di tutela dei beni e dell’ambiente”.
48 With specific reference to the prevention of the risk of exposure from asbestos, it provides that the work

plan to be prepared by the employer prior to the commencement of demolition or removal works of buildings,
structures, equipment and installations and means of transport must “prevedere le misure necessarie per
garantire la sicurezza e la salute dei lavoratori sul luogo di lavoro e la protezione dell’ambiente esterno”.
49 On the paradigm shift in this sense, Brino V., La “governance societaria sostenibile”: un cantiere da esplorare per il

diritto del lavoro?, in Lavoro e Diritto, 3, 2023, 437-457, who resumes in a problematic way Onza M., Gestione
sostenibile” dell’impresa, “adeguati assetti” e (una annotazione su) “interesse sociale”: spunti di riflessione, in Ristrutturazioni
aziendali, 1, 2023.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                                     87
     Maria Giovannone                                                                                  Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                              Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                                              Section: Miscellaneous




   In fact, the factors to be considered for the purposes of Article 2087 c.c. are still psycho-
physical risks of work origin. Otherwise, exogenous factors cannot be considered
independently, but at most if they can influence work risks. Therefore, the exogenous factors
must be taken into consideration by the employer because they are suitable for affecting
professional risks in terms of aggravation, predictability and interference.
   Furthermore, in terms of criminal liability, it must deal with the limits imposed by its
criminal sanctionability, even in the face of a dynamically selective extension of the risk
assessment obligation (Article 28, paragraph 1 and 29, paragraph 1 of Legislative Decree no.
81/2008). Indeed, the criminal sanctionability in turn depends on the link between the
organization and risks to the health and safety of workers.50
   The same argumentative direction suggests the comparison of the new provisions of
Article 41 Const. with the constant orientation of the constitutional jurisprudence on the
matter, as well as with the principles of specificity of criminal law. Therefore, even in the face
of the constitutional novelty, it seems difficult to re-read the Article 2087 c.c. and the
prevention legislation in this perspective. The risk is that of an excessive expansion of the
safety debt to be paid by the employer.
   In fact, a systematic reflection on effective protection techniques to accompany the
changes in a path of sustainability51 cannot imply an automatic remodelling of the prevention
obligations, nor even less a reinterpretation of Article 2087 c.c. in terms of environmental
sustainability.52 The relevance of the constitutional reform, therefore, must be sought in the
formal consecration of ecological values in the sphere of principles that should guide the
action of public and private actors. The latter will have to reconcile production activity and
work organization with the environmental dynamics in which the company itself is
immersed, with much more limited prerogatives of domination and predetermination.
Therefore, there is a clear difference between preventive protection and environmental
protection and it is necessary to take into account the inevitable constitutional balance53
between health, environment and freedom of economic initiative. However, the wording of
the Article 41 of the Constitution does not alter the subjective and objective scope of
application of the Article 2087 c.c., nor that of Legislative Decree no. 81/2008.
   On the other hand, already in the pre-pandemic period the complementarity between the
protection of the environment and the protection of workers had emerged in the judicial
events (Ilva case in Taranto).54 But most of all, the health emergency contributed to a


50 On the topic, Cass. 6 September 2021, n. 32899, which ruled on the well-known Viareggio railway disaster.
51 Cfr. EU-OSHA, Workplace Health Promotion, Managing occupational safety and health in a warmer planet, Bilbao, 2022.
52 Pascucci P., Salute pubblica e limiti all’attività di impresa dall’angolo visuale del diritto del lavoro e della sicurezza sul lavoro,

in Zoppoli L. (ed.), Tutela della salute pubblica e rapporti di lavoro - Quaderno di Diritti Lavori Mercati, Editoriale
Scientifica, Naples, 2021,121; but also Pascucci P., nt. (43), 335-355.
53 On the issue, Zoppoli L., Il danno biologico tra principi costituzionali, rigidità civilistiche e tutela previdenziale, in Diritto

delle Relazioni Industriali, 3, 2001, 389-395.
54 Cf. Corte Cost. 2013, n. 85 which, also referring to previous pronouncements, refutes the existence of “tyrant

rights”, placed in a rigid hierarchy and endowed with absolute prevalence over others. Consequentially, all
fundamental rights - even the “primary” and “most fundamental” ones such as health and the environment -
are “dynamically” balancing by the Legislator, with the only limit being respect for proportionality and
reasonableness pursuant to Article 3 of the Constitution. In literature, the contributions of Tullini P., I dilemmi
del caso Ilva e i tormenti del giuslavorista, in Ius17, 3, 2012, 163-169; Pascucci P., La salvaguardia dell’occupazione nel

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                                          88
  Maria Giovannone                                                                                 Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                          Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                                          Section: Miscellaneous




generalised unhinging of the boundaries between the “external and internal” workplace and
between “public health and health and safety at work”. This fuels the risk of including in the
judicial-penalistic mechanisms not only the protection of workers’ health but also that of the
surrounding population and the external environment.55 The same risk of Covid-19
contagion was in fact the recipient of a ‘circular’ attention between the protection of both
public health and workers’ health.56
   And in fact, compared to other European countries, there is a worrying overuse of
criminal law in Italy, both for the protection of health and the protection of the
environment.57 It follows that instances of protection through the instruments of criminal
law, as a privileged instrument of action in our legal system, often produce outcomes that
are very creative and full of grey areas.58 Also, for this reason, it is useful to prevent dilation
mechanisms to the environmental sphere of the employer’s preventive obligation and of the
relative criminal sanctions. This need arises especially in the aftermath of the introduction of
environmental protection into the Constitution,59 as part of the new and fundamental
structure of collective prevention and public health promoted by the PNRR.60

decreto “salva Ilva”. Diritto alla salute vs diritto al lavoro?, in I WP di Olympus, 27, 2013. More recently, Laforgia S., Se
Taranto è l’Italia, in Lavoro e Diritto, 1, 2022, 30-52.
55 Also of this opinion is Natullo G., L’organizzazione delle imprese a tutela dell'integrità psico-fisica dei lavoratori e dei

cittadini, in Zoppoli L. (ed.), nt. (52), 130, who points out that precisely with regard to the relationship between
the external environment, work environments and company organisation, the ‘Covid-19’ pandemic has
introduced further and new critical elements. These critical issues have strongly challenged arrangements that,
in some ways, could have been considered by now consolidated, posing new and delicate problems and
requiring obviously urgent and effective responses. In fact, according to the Author, the 2020 health
emergency has profoundly accentuated the correlations between the work environment and the “external”
environment, with significant repercussions on health and safety in the workplace.
56 In these terms Buoso S., nt. (38), 282; in the same vein P. Pascucci, nt. (52), 123, according to whom during
the Covid-19 pandemic the regulation of health and safety in the workplace became a fundamental element of
the broader instrumentation to combat the spread of the virus. Therefore, it was an instrument for the
protection of public health. In fact, according to the Author, in such a hypothesis protecting the health of those
at work also means protecting that of those outside the production context. Conversely, the risk of contagion
for those at work does not only emerge due to its aggravation within the production organisation, but also
outside it, given the immanence of the virus everywhere. More restrictive is the interpretation of Maresca A., Il
rischio di contagio da COVID-19 nei luoghi di lavoro: obblighi di sicurezza e art. 2087 c.c. (prime osservazioni sull’art. 29-bis
della l. n. 40/2020), in Diritto della sicurezza sul lavoro, 2, 2020, 8.
57 Reference is made to the research carried out between 2018 and 2020 as part of a project promoted by the

Italian Association of Criminal Law Professors (AIPDP) entitled La riforma dei delitti contro la persona. Please refer,
in particular, to the comparative outlines contained in the final document drafted by the VIII Group (“Crimes
against private and public health and against private and public safety”, referee: Donini M.), in particular to
Section I: Gargani, Zirulia, Castronuovo, Protection of life and health (in the areas of work safety, food, drugs,
etc.); and to Section II: Ruga Riva, Environmental crimes (the document can be consulted at
https://www.aipdp.it/aipdp-documenti/La-%20riforma-dei-delitti-contro-la-persona).                               For          more
comprehensive comparative analyses, please refer to the preparatory documents available at
https://www.aipdp.it/aipdp-documenti/Documenti-per-il-VII-Congresso-La-riforma-dei-reati-contro-la-
persona (under “8th Group”).
58 In this sense, Castronuovo D., Multidirectional Projections of risk: critical issues in the criminal protection of health and the

environment, in Lavoro e Diritto, 2, 2022, 375-393.
59 By Constitutional Law No. 1 of 11 February 2022, recante Modifiche agli articoli 9 e 41 della Costituzione in materia di

tutela dell'ambiente.
60 The reference is, specifically, to the establishment of the National System for the Prevention of

Environmental and Climate Risks (SNPS), which is part of the interventions financed by the National Plan for
Complementary Investments to the NRP. See Chapter II, § 5. In literature, Caruso B., Del Punta R., Treu T., Il
Diritto del lavoro nella giusta transizione. Un contributo “oltre” il manifesto, in CSDLE “Massimo D’Antona”, 2023, 15;
Santini G., Costituzione e ambiente: la riforma degli artt. 9 e 41 Cost., in Quaderni Costituzionali, 2, 2021, 471, for whom

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                                     89
  Maria Giovannone                                                                            Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                     Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                                     Section: Miscellaneous




3.2. Environmental protection, work organisation and workers’ participation.

    Moreover, what has been said so far suggests that it may be useful to carefully evaluate
certain ecological fascinations.61 Without an appropriate comparison with the criminal law
apparatus of reference, these lead to superimposing a broader duty to adopt measures to
protect the population and the external environment onto the employer’s obligation to
prevent accidents. In this case, the effect would be to extend extending the relative
sanctioning discipline.
    In this regard, the constitutionalist doctrine has repeatedly warned practitioners against
the risks of overestimating the constitutional reform in the name of a political correctness that
has little to do with the technical-legal interpretation of the rule.62 Rather, the value-balancing
relationship between health, environment and business activity has remained unchanged.
The extraneousness of the constitutional provision to an extensive ratio of the preventive
obligation is further corroborated by the interpretation of constitutionalists and criminalists.
In particular, they deny that it can determine a hierarchy of values between health,
environment and business activity, as clarified by the unshakable orientation expressed by
the Constitutional Court in its ruling no. 85 of 2013. Ultimately, except for specific cases,63
the two areas of discipline - preventive and environmental - preserve their autonomy, all the
more so for the (civil and criminal) sanctioning profiles.
    On the other hand, precisely concerning production activities with a more pronounced
environmental impact, there is the interesting contractual practice64 of establishing the figure
of the Workers’ Representative for Health, Safety and the Environment (Rappresentante dei
lavoratori per la salute e sicurezza e l’ambiente - RLSSA). This representative takes over the rights,
role, and attributions from the RLS and the bodies delegated to environmental protection.
In particular, this figure is recognised as one of the subjects that determine company
strategies based on sustainability, in collaboration with trade union representatives and
company management.65 For its part, although outside the field of prevention, the New Skills
Fund (Fondo Nuove Competenze)66 itself represents a testing ground in which collective

constitutional intervention is consistent with the principle of “do no significant harm”, which inspires the “Next
Generation EU” initiatives and the National Recovery and Resilience Plan.
61 Tomassetti P.,nt. (38).
62 Among the numerous contributions, very critical on the subject is Cecchetti M., Virtù e limiti della modifica

degli articoli 9 e 41 della Costituzione, in Corti Supreme e salute, 1, 2022, 127-154.
63 Regarding installations exposed to the risk of major accidents and the residual activities characterised by the

use of asbestos. On both see the reflection of S. Buoso, nt. (13), 123-156.
64 Among them, Chemical-Pharmaceutical and Allied Ccnl, renewed by the 2019-2022 Agreement; Energy and

Oil Ccnl, renewed by the 2019-2021 Agreement; Electricity Ccnl 2019-2021; Rubber and Plastics Ccnl 2015-
2018, renewed by the 2020-2022 Agreement.
65 Pascucci P., nt. (43), 341, who points out that the figure of RLSSA deserves to be strengthened and developed,

still confined only to some realities in which it is established at the request of the RSU to play its role in
environmental matters. Del Frate M., La tutela dell’ambiente nel riformato art. 41, co. 2 Cost.: qualcosa di nuovo nell’aria?
in Diritto delle relazioni industriali, 3, 2022, 907 ff.
66 The FNC was established by the decreto Rilancio (Decree-Law No. 34/2020, conv. with amendments by

Law No. 77/2020). The first increase in resources was provided for with the Agosto Decree (Decree-Law No.
104/2020), which combined the objective of “favouring outplacement paths for workers” with the
improvement of workers’ skills to be spent in the company. Law No. 215 of 17 December 2021, converting
Law Decree No. 146 of 21 October 2021, subsequently increased the resources allocated to the Fund (Article

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                              90
  Maria Giovannone                                                                                   Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                            Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                                            Section: Miscellaneous




bargaining directs public interventions67 aimed at supporting the green and digital transition
of companies.68 However, both instruments seem to start from the assumption that the
company, the workers, and the social partners can positively contribute to the realisation of
environmental protection objectives. It is not presupposed a further, and increasingly
undefined, prevention obligation on their part.69
   On a further level, the expansion of the catalogue of offences provided for by Legislative
Decree No. 231/2001 has been enriched over time to also include environmental offences.
This makes reciprocal integration (and not undue overlap) between environmental
protection and prevention protection always feasible when adopting an organisation and
management model capable of relieving the company of liability. It follows that, even more
so, the company policy for safety at work and protection of the external environment can
share the same methodological approach that relies on systemic, planned, and organised
prevention: an integration that does not (and cannot) concern specific technical aspects but
rather the way by which the company organises prevention with respect to the internal and
external environment.70
   From this last point of view, we observe71 how environmental crimes (Article 25-undecies
of Legislative Decree no. 231/2001) and crimes of homicide and unintentional personal
injury committed in violation of prevention legislation (Article 25-septies of Legislative


11-ter). The Fund's operations were then extended for the year 2022 (Article 9, Law Decree No. 228 of 30
December 2021; Article 9, paragraph 8, Law Decree No. 228 of 30 December 2021, converted by Law No.
15/2022). Lastly, the art. 19 of the Legislative Decree n. 48/2023, conv. in L. no. 85/2023 refinanced the Fund
for the 2021-2027 programming period. In particular, from 2023, access to the Fund is permitted subject to the
signing of collective agreements aimed at support the updating of workers’ professionalism following the digital
and ecological transition.
67 Impellizzieri G., Fondo nuove competenze e contrattazione collettiva: una rassegna ragionata, in Diritto delle relazioni

industriali, 3, 2021, 896; Talarico M., Autonomia collettiva e formazione professionale: il Fondo nuove competenze quale nuovo
strumento di politica attiva, in Ciucciovino S., Garofalo D., Sartori A., Tiraboschi M., Trojsi A., Zoppoli L. (eds.),
Flexicurity e mercati transzionali del lavoro. Per una nuova stagione per il diritto del mercato del lavoro?, ADAPT University
Press, 2021, 343. On critical operational issues, Impellizieri G., Massagli E., Fondo nuove competenze: funzionamento,
elementi di originalità e privi rilievi critici, in Diritto delle relazioni industriali, 4, 2020, 1191 ff.
68 See also, Giovannone M., L’eredità della pandemia: i cambiamenti strutturali in materia di lavoro e welfare, ASTRIL,

Working Paper, 59, 2022.
69 On the role of trade union representation, at national and international level, Chacartegui C., Workers’

participation and green governance, in Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 40, 1, 2018, 94; Duval A., Moreau M.
A., Social Environmental Justice: From the Concept to Reality, in Duval A., Moreau M. A. (eds.), Towards Social
Environmental Justice?, EUI Working Paper LAW, 2, 2012, 2; Peruzzi M., Il dialogo sociale europeo di fronte alle sfide
della digitalizzazione, in Diritto delle relazioni industriali, 4, 2020, 1213 ff.; Giovannone M., nt. (35); Giovannone M.,
Safety at work, new risks and employer liability: prospects for post-Covid-19 regulation in Italy, in Italian Labour Law e-Journal,
14, 1, 2021, 138 ff.; Battaglini E., Ambiente e società nella tarda modernizzazione: le sfide per il sindacato, in Quaderni di
Rassegna Sindacale, 2, 2010, 123-136; Tomassetti P., Statuto dei lavoratori e questione ambientale: dall’autunno caldo ai
c.d. global climate strikes, in Rivista Quadrimestrale di Diritto dell’Ambiente, 2, 2020, 162-192; Angelini L.,
Rappresentanza e partecipazione nel diritto della salute e sicurezza dei lavoratori in Italia, in Diritto della sicurezza sul lavoro,
1, 2020, 96-116.
70 Pascucci P., nt. (43), 351-352 also expresses himself in similar terms; Lazzari C., Pascucci P., La gestione della

circolarità dei rischi tra ambiente interno ed esterno all’azienda. Profili giuridici, in Diritto della sicurezza sul lavoro, 1, 2023,
45 ff.
71 The reference is to the results of the research carried out by the University of Milan – Department of Legal

Sciences “Cesare Beccaria”, through the «Osservatorio sulla giurisprudenza in materia di responsabilità da reato
degli enti ex d.lgs. 231/2001» (coordinated by Prof. Marco Scoletta).

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                                       91
     Maria Giovannone                                                                         Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                     Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                                     Section: Miscellaneous




Decree no. 231/2001) are the heart of the system of para-criminal liability of collective
bodies.
   Nonetheless, the combination of environment and workplace safety present in Legislative
Decree no. 231/2001 - and today in the constitutional provisions - is based on a basic
regulatory premise that is antithetical, in some ways. In fact, Legislative Decree no. 231/2001
clearly differentiates the issues relating to the protection of the environment and the
prevention of accidents at work.72
   On the other hand, despite some lack of connections in the respective disciplines (for
example, in terms of death or injuries as a consequence of environmental pollution), there
are important aspects of real interference between the environment and safety within the
discipline of Legislative Decree no. 231/2001. In fact, it creates an osmotic tension between
the offenses of Articles 25-septies and 25-undecies of Legislative Decree no. 231/2001. This
both with reference to the structural conformation of some environmental crimes,73 both in
the “extended” interpretation and the so-called “preventive aggravating circumstance” in
relation to the facts committed with the violation of the rules for the prevention of accidents
at work (Articles 589, paragraph 2 and 590, paragraph 3 of the criminal code) and for the
charge against the entity (Article 25-septies of Legislative Decree no. 231/2001).
   In fact, in this regard, the Italian jurisprudence74 has specified that “workplace” (protected
by accident prevention legislation) must be understood as any place which the worker
accesses, even only occasionally, to carry out the tasks entrusted to him. The “workplace”
includes all the spaces in which the work activity takes place and in which, regardless of the
actuality of the activity, i) those who are authorized to access the construction site and ii)
those who access it for reasons related to the work activity can go or stay (even during breaks,
rest or suspension of work), including strangers.75
   Much less obvious – and still debated today - is the question inherent to the extension of
the subjective sphere of the preventive aggravating factor, to include harmful events caused
to subjects outside the company (“third parties”, in the broad sense). These are subjects who,
for various reasons, come into contact with it and with the workplace.76 All this, however,
does not change the terms of the question as posed so far. Yet, this criticality enhances the
company’s opportunity to make use of organizational models integrated in a doubly
preventive logic of both prevention and environmental crimes.




72 Sul tema cfr. Chilois M., Riccardi M., Profili penalistici dei modelli organizzativi. Ambiente interno e ambiente esterno:
interferenze relative al catalogo “231”, in Diritto della Sicurezza sul Lavoro, 1, 2023, 65-94.
73 More extensively on the topic, Di Landro A., La responsabilità per l’attività autorizzata nei settori dell’ambiente e del

territorio. Strumenti penali ed extrapenali di tutela, Giappichelli, Turin, 2018.
74 Cass. 27 gennaio 2011, n. 19553.
75 Cass. 22 marzo 2016, n. 14775, in Foro italiano, 2016, n. 5, 281; Cass. 19 febbraio 2015, n. 18073.
76 Cass. 1° luglio 2009, n. 37840, in C.E.D. Cass., rv. 245274; Cass. 10 novembre 2005, n. 2383, Losappio, there,

rv. 232916. In the same terms, Cass 7 febbraio 2008, n. 10842, in Cassazione penale, 2009, 1, 201.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                              92
     Maria Giovannone                                                                                 Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                             Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                                             Section: Miscellaneous




4. External risks and the new “work circumstances”.

    These conclusions do not change even if one recovers the jurisprudential orientation on
the role assumed by exogenous risks in the occupational health and safety system. If these
risks are foreseeable and correlated to the specific modalities of performance of the service,
they must be considered as environmental risks inseparably connected to the productive
activity. For this reason, they fully subject to the discipline of Article 2087 of the Civil Code77
due to the constitutional importance attributed to the right to health (Article 32 of the
Constitution) and the principles of fairness and good faith (Articles 1175 and 1135 of the
Civil Code).
    Furthermore, this approach has also been extended to insurance obligations to which case
law has applied the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1124 of 1965 “[...] given the
constitutional importance of the right to health and the principles of fairness and good faith”
(alla stregua del rilievo costituzionale del diritto alla salute che dei principi di correttezza e buona fede ).78
    On closer inspection, the impact of these sentences does not affect the environmental
issue analysed here. Indeed, they exclusively concern accidents that occurred in sectors of
activity (banking, health, private security, activities performed in high-risk geopolitical
scenarios, etc.) where the external risks were specific and foreseeable in relation to the work
performed. For this reason, they could not be considered as factors external to the
production cycle, but as integral parts of the company organisation. However, for prevention
purposes, it is difficult to compare with that which occurs in external, non-work
environments, removed from the legal availability of the employer and functionally detached
from a business organisation.
    Moreover, it is possible to move from the prevention profiles (governed by Legislative
Decree no. 81/2008) to the insurance profiles (governed by Presidential Decree no. 1124 of
1965). Even in this field, it seems difficult to hypothesise that the notions of “job
circumstances” and “work cause” governed therein can justify the extension of INAIL’s
insurance obligation to the external environment and the people who inhabit it. As reiterated
by case law, “work circumstances” are all the conditions (including environmental ones) in
which the work activity takes place and in which there is an inherent risk of harm to the
worker. This is relevant regardless of whether it comes from the production apparatus, from
third parties or the worker’s own facts and situations (with the sole limit of the so-called
‘elective risk’).79 Accordingly, the employer’s liability for events occurring on the “job
circumstances” is not to be considered from the point of view of the mere material objectivity
of the same. This liability must be examined in relation to all the circumstances of time, place

77  Ex plurimis Cass. 20 April 1998, no. 4012; Cass. 6 September 1988, no. 5048; Cass. 17 July 1999, no. 7768;
Cass. 8 April 2013 no. 8486; Cass. 11 April 2013. no. 8855. In doctrine see Giovannone M., Attività criminosa di
terzi e obblighi prevenzionistici: i profili di responsabilità datoriale e il ruolo della security aziendale, in Diritto delle relazioni
Industriali, 4, 2013, 1150-1156; Giuliani A., La sicurezza nel lavoro bancario. Due ipotesi tipiche: il rischio da attività
criminose e lavoro a videoterminale, in Tiraboschi M., Fantini L. (eds.), Il Testo Unico della salute e sicurezza sul lavoro dopo
il correttivo (d.lgs. n. 106/2009), Giuffrè, Milan, 2009, 871-883.
78 As of Cass. 20 April 1998, no. 4012.
79 Cass. 13 Maggio 2016, no. 9913 as well as, ex plurimis, Cass. 27 Febbraio 2002, no. 2942; recently, Cass. 23

Luglio 2012, no. 12779.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                                         93
     Maria Giovannone                                                                       Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                   Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                                   Section: Miscellaneous




and environment connected to the work activity performed. It can take on peculiar
connotations such as to qualify it more or less differently from other forms of common
liability and make it fall within the scope of the prevention regulations.80 Therefore, the
normality and typicality of the risk take on a decisive value for the purposes of the existence
of the prevention obligation and the related liability.


5. Concluding reflections.

    In light of what has been said so far, there is no doubt that the environmental issue finds
its precise and problematic field of investigation in labour law. It makes it legitimate to ask
whether environmental protection thrusts the employer’s obligation to protect health and
safety at work beyond the confines of the company and the organisation of work.
    Consequently, it is necessary to highlight the diversity between preventive safeguards and
environmental protection clarified above, as well as the inevitable constitutional balancing81
of health assets, the environment, and the freedom of economic initiative. Therefore, it is
not difficult to deduce that the introduction of environmental protection in Article 41 of the
Constitution does not alter the subjective and objective scope of application of the
preventive obligation governed by Article 2087 c.c. and Legislative Decree No. 81/2008.
    On the other hand, it is worth remembering how, long ago, the company and the workers
were called upon to make their contribution to the process of incorporating environmental
protection among the collective interests. On the side of regulation techniques, this objective
can well be achieved by exploiting the clear link between i) the company preventive
management, ii) the “green” reorganisation of the production system and iii) the participatory
regulation of risk by workers and their representatives.82
    From this point of view, the prevention discipline can have a “pulling effect” to stimulate
the scientific debate and operational practice in two important directions.
    From an employer and managerial point of view, the logic of good organisation and
corporate social responsibility is imposed. The prevention discipline can urge the adoption
of organisation and management models and integrated environmental and safety
management systems. Secondly, in the context of the new types of risk and the sustainable
transition, it can promote the design of specialist training and information paths for workers,
trade union and safety representatives. These plans must be capable of broadening their
knowledge and skills and stimulating greater ecological awareness.
    On the side of workers’ representatives, it is necessary to turn the trade union towards a
participatory model in the sustainable management of the enterprise. This objective can be



80 In this sense, see Cass. 17 Dicembre 1998, no. 12652, and, more recently, Cass. 28 Luglio 2004, no. 14287;
Cass. 04 Agosto 2005, no. 16417.
81 On this theme see Zoppoli L., nt. (53).
82 On the need to proceed in this direction, Zbyszewska A., Labor law for warming world: Exploring the interSections of

work regulation and environmental sustainability: An introduction, in Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 40, 1, 2018,
2.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                            94
     Maria Giovannone                                                                                Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                            Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                                            Section: Miscellaneous




achieved through a serious qualification/re-qualification of trade union representatives83 and
the use of (first and second level) collective bargaining, also on these thematic areas that are
bound to impact on the company responsibility.


                                                          Bibliography

Abhayawansa S., Tyagi Sh., Sustainable Investing: The Black Box of Environmental, Social, and
Governance (ESG) Ratings, in The Journal of Wealth Management, 24, 1, 2021, 49-54.
Ales E., Occupational Health and Safety: a European and Comparative Legal Perspective, in WP
C.D.S.L.E. “Massimo D’Antona”, 12, 2015.
Angelini L., Rappresentanza e partecipazione nel diritto della salute e sicurezza dei lavoratori in Italia, in
Diritto della sicurezza sul lavoro, 1, 2020, 96-116.
Baraibar-Diez E., Odriozola M., CSR Committees and Their Effect on ESG Performance in UK,
France, Germany, and Spain, in Sustainability, 2019, 11, 18.
Barca S., On working-class environmentalism: a historical and transnational overview, in Interface, 4, 2.
Battaglini E., Ambiente e società nella tarda modernizzazione: le sfide per il sindacato, in Quaderni di
Rassegna Sindacale, 2, 2010, 123-136.
Brino V., La “governance societaria sostenibile”: un cantiere da esplorare per il diritto del lavoro?, in Lavoro
e Diritto, 3, 2023, 437-457.
Brino V., Perulli A., Diritto Internazionale del Lavoro, Giappichelli, Turin, 2023.
Buoso S., Principio di prevenzione e sicurezza sul lavoro, Giappichelli, Turin, 2020.
Buoso S., Sicurezza sul lavoro, ambiente e prevenzione: disciplina positiva e dilemmi regolativi, in Lavoro
e diritto, 2, 2022.
Buoso S., Lassandari A., Martelloni F., Presentazione, Il tema. Lavoro e ambiente nell’Antropocene:
il problema e il sistema, in Lavoro e Diritto, 2, 2022.
Cagnin V., Diritto del lavoro e sviluppo sostenibile, CEDAM, Padova, 2018.
Caruso B., Del Punta R., Treu T., Manifesto per un diritto del lavoro sostenibile, «Centre for the
Study of European Labour Law» (CSDLE) “Massimo D'Antona”, 20 May 2020.
Caruso B., Del Punta R., Treu T., Il Diritto del lavoro nella giusta transizione. Un contributo “oltre”
il manifesto, in CSDLE “Massimo D’Antona”, 2023
Castronuovo D., Multidirectional Projections of risk: critical issues in the criminal protection of health and
the environment, in Lavoro e Diritto, 2, 2022, 375-393.



83 On the need for strong professionalisation of company representations in general, as well as in health and
safety, see Ciucciovino S., Il quadro italiano, in Ciucciovino S., Marchiori M. (eds.), Le pratiche partecipative per la
tutela della salute e della sicurezza. Il ruolo del Rappresentante dei Lavoratori per la Sicurezza nel settore dell'igiene ambientale,
Ediesse, 2017, 54. The European scenario offers numerous suggestions on the ability of trade unions to
intercept the training needs of representatives underlying the challenges posed by the green transition. Among
them, is the guide ‘Green Workplaces - a guide for union representatives’ published by the ETUC in 2012. In
addition, training initiatives on the subject addressed by trade union organisations to their representatives are
multiplying. An interesting example is the training event “Greening our workplaces – ‘green skills’ for trade
unionists” organised in 2021 by the British Trade Union Congress – TUC, available at
https://www.tuc.org.uk/events/greening-our-workplaces-green-skills-trade-unionists-0.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                                       95
 Maria Giovannone                                                                 Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                         Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                         Section: Miscellaneous




Chacartegui C., Workers’ participation and green governance, in Comparative Labor Law & Policy
Journal, 40, 1, 2018.
Cecchetti M., Virtù e limiti della modifica degli articoli 9 e 41 della Costituzione, in Corti Supreme e
salute, 1, 2022, 127-154.
Chilois M., Riccardi M., Profili penalistici dei modelli organizzativi. Ambiente interno e ambiente esterno:
interferenze relative al catalogo “231”, in Diritto della Sicurezza sul Lavoro, 1, 2023, 65-94.
Centamore G., Una just transition per il diritto del lavoro, in Lavoro e Diritto, 1, 2022, 129-145.
Corvino A., Giovannone M., Tiraboschi M., Organizzazione del lavoro e nuove forme di impiego.
Partecipazione dei lavoratori e buone pratiche in relazione alla salute e sicurezza sul lavoro, Centro Studi
Internazionali e Comparati “Marco Biagi”, 2008.
Del Frate M., La tutela dell’ambiente nel riformato art. 41, co. 2 Cost.: qualcosa di nuovo nell’aria? in
Diritto delle relazioni industriali, 3, 2022.
Di Landro A., La responsabilità per l’attività autorizzata nei settori dell’ambiente e del territorio.
Strumenti penali ed extrapenali di tutela, Giappichelli, Turin, 2018.
Doorey D. J., Just Transitions Law: Putting Labour Law to Work on Climate Change, in Journal of
Environmental Law and Practice, 30, 2.
Dovere S., La sicurezza del lavoro tra prevenzione e repressione, in Natullo G., Saracini P. (eds.),
Salute e sicurezza sul lavoro. Regole, organizzazione e partecipazione, in Quaderni della rivista Diritti
Lavori Mercati, 3, 2017.
Duval A., Moreau M. A., Social Environmental Justice: From the Concept to Reality, in Duval A.,
Moreau M. A. (eds.), Towards Social Environmental Justice?, EUI Working Paper LAW, 2, 2012.
EU-OSHA, Workplace Health Promotion, Managing occupational safety and health in a warmer planet,
Bilbao, 2022.
Fantini L., Giuliani A., Salute e sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro. Le norme, l'interpretazione e la prassi,
Giuffrè, Milan, 2015.
Ghera E., Labor law, Cacucci, Bari, 1996.
Gillan S. L., Koch A., Starks L. T., Firms and social responsibility: A review of ESG and CSR research
in corporate finance, in Journal of Corporate Finance, 66, 2021, 101889.
Giovannini E., L’utopia sostenibile, Laterza, Bari, 2018.
Giovannone M., Attività criminosa di terzi e obblighi prevenzionistici: i profili di responsabilità datoriale
e il ruolo della security aziendale, in Diritto delle relazioni Industriali, 4, 2013, 1150-1156.
Giovannone M., La tutela dei labour standards nella catena globale del valore, Aracne editrice, Rome,
2019.
Giovannone M. (ed.), La responsabilità civile e penale del datore di lavoro nel contesto dell’emergenza
sanitaria, Conference Proceedings, Aracne Editore, Rome, 2021.
Giovannone M., La responsabilità civile e penale del datore di lavoro nel contesto dell’emergenza sanitaria,
in Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 3, 2021, 577-600.
Giovannone M., Le nuove dinamiche della contrattazione collettiva per la Just Transition: prospettive
regolative per la convergenza tra interessi economici, sociali e ambientali, in Rivista Giuridica del Lavoro e
della Previdenza Sociale, 4, 2021, 637-658.
Giovannone M., Safety at work, new risks and employer liability: prospects for post-Covid-19 regulation
in Italy, in Italian Labour Law e-Journal, 14, 1, 2021.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                  96
 Maria Giovannone                                                                   Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                           Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                           Section: Miscellaneous




Giovannone M., L’eredità della pandemia: i cambiamenti strutturali in materia di lavoro e welfare,
ASTRIL, Working Paper, 59, 2022.
Giubboni S., I presupposti della responsabilità civile del datore per infortunio sul lavoro nella nomofilachia
della Suprema Corte (con una chiosa sul risarcimento del danno da Covid-19) (Corte di cassazione, sezione
lavoro, 19 giugno 2020, n. 12041), in Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 3, 2020, 669-689.
Giuliani A., La sicurezza nel lavoro bancario. Due ipotesi tipiche: il rischio da attività criminose e lavoro
a videoterminale, in Tiraboschi M., Fantini L. (eds.), Il Testo Unico della salute e sicurezza sul lavoro
dopo il correttivo (d.lgs. n. 106/2009), Giuffrè, Milan, 2009, 871-883.
Gottardi D., CSR da scelta unilaterale datoriale a oggetto di negoziazione collettiva: la responsabilità
sociale contrattualizzata, in Guarriello F., Stanzani C. (eds.), Sindacato e contrattazione nelle
multinazionali. Dalla normativa internazionale all'analisi empirica, Franco Angeli, Milan, 2018, 58-
75.
Groppi T., La dimensione costituzionale della sostenibilità: la sfida dell’effettività, in Lavoro e Diritto, 3,
2023, 459-472.
Impellizzieri G., Fondo nuove competenze e contrattazione collettiva: una rassegna ragionata, in Diritto
delle relazioni industriali, 3, 2021.
Impellizieri G., Massagli E., Fondo nuove competenze: funzionamento, elementi di originalità e privi
rilievi critici, in Diritto delle relazioni industriali, 4, 2020.
Huang D., Environmental, social and governance (ESG) activity and firm performance: A review and
consolidation, in Accounting & finance, 61, 1, 2021, 335-360.
Laforgia S., Se Taranto è l’Italia, in Lavoro e Diritto, 1, 2022, 30-52.
Lambertucci L., L’obbligazione di sicurezza del datore di lavoro tra responsabilità civile e tutela
precauzionale: un possibile ruolo della contrattazione collettiva, in Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro, 1,
2021.
Lazzari C., Pascucci P., La gestione della circolarità dei rischi tra ambiente interno ed esterno all’azienda.
Profili giuridici, in Diritto della sicurezza sul lavoro, 1, 2023.
Lepore M., La nuova normativa: dalla prevenzione tecnologica alla sicurezza di tipo organizzativo, in
Tiraboschi M., Fantini L. (eds.), Il testo unico della salute e sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro dopo il
correttivo (d. lgs. n. 106/2009), Giuffrè, Milan, 2009.
Maresca A., Il rischio di contagio da COVID-19 nei luoghi di lavoro: obblighi di sicurezza e art. 2087
c.c. (prime osservazioni sull’art. 29-bis della l. n. 40/2020), in Diritto della sicurezza sul lavoro, 2, 2020.
Martelloni F., I benefici condizionati come tecniche promozionali nel Green New Deal, in Lavoro e Diritto,
2, 2022, 293-310.
Meaney M. E., Private Corporations and Environmental Social Governance: An Uneven Response, in
Fulfilling the Sustainable Development Goals, Routledge, London, 2021
Mesiti D., L’ambito di applicazione della tutela prevenzionistica ed antinfortunistica e, segnatamente,
dell'art. 2087 c.c., p. 322, in Il lavoro nella giurisprudenza, 4, 2017.
Montuschi L., Right to health and work organization, Franco Angeli, Milan, 1989.
Montuschi L. (ed.), Environment, health and safety, Giappichelli, Turin, 1997.
Morrone A., La Costituzione del lavoro e dell’ambiente. Per un nuovo contratto sociale, in Giornale di
Diritto del Lavoro e delle Relazioni Industriali, 4, 2022.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                    97
 Maria Giovannone                                                                   Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                           Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                           Section: Miscellaneous




Natullo G., Il quadro normativo dal Codice civile al Codice della sicurezza sul lavoro. Dalla Massima
sicurezza (astrattamente) possibile alla Massima sicurezza ragionevolmente (concretamente) applicata?, in I
Working Papers di Olympus, 39, 2014.
Natullo G., La sicurezza del lavoro, oggi. Regole e prassi tra vecchi paradigmi e nuovi modelli organizzativi,
in Natullo G., Saracini P. (eds.) Salute e sicurezza sul lavoro. Regole, organizzazione e partecipazione,
in Quaderni della rivista Diritti Lavori Mercati, 3, 2017.
Natullo G., La gestione della pandemia nei luoghi di lavoro, in Lavoro e diritto, 1, 2022..
Natullo G., L’organizzazione delle imprese a tutela dell'integrità psico-fisica dei lavoratori e dei cittadini,
in Zoppoli L. (ed.), Tutela della salute pubblica e rapporti di lavoro - Quaderno di Diritti Lavori Mercati,
Editoriale Scientifica, Naples, 2021.
Onza M., Gestione sostenibile” dell’impresa, “adeguati assetti” e (una annotazione su) “interesse sociale”:
spunti di riflessione, in Ristrutturazioni aziendali, 1, 2023.
Pascucci P., Angelini L., Lazzari C., I “sistemi” di vigilanza e di controllo nel diritto della salute e
sicurezza sul lavoro, in Lavoro e diritto, 4, 2015.
Pascucci P., Note sul futuro del lavoro salubre e sicuro… e sulle norme sulla sicurezza di rider & co, in
Diritto della sicurezza sul lavoro, 1, 2019, 37-57.
Pascucci P., Salute pubblica e limiti all’attività di impresa dall’angolo visuale del diritto del lavoro e della
sicurezza sul lavoro, in Zoppoli L. (ed.), Tutela della salute pubblica e rapporti di lavoro - Quaderno di
Diritti Lavori Mercati, Editoriale Scientifica, Naples, 2021.
Pascucci P., La salvaguardia dell’occupazione nel decreto “salva Ilva”. Diritto alla salute vs diritto al
lavoro?, in I WP di Olympus, 27, 2013.
Pascucci P., Modelli organizzativi e tutela dell’ambiente interno ed esterno dell’impresa, in Lavoro e
diritto, 2, 2022.
Pinardi R., Iniziativa economica, lavoro ed ambiente alla luce della recente riforma costituzionale degli artt.
9 e 41 Cost., in Diritto della Sicurezza sul Lavoro, 1, 2023, 21-34.
Perulli A. (ed.), La responsabilità sociale delle imprese: idee e prassi, Il Mulino, Bologna, 2013.
Perulli A., Lyon-Caen A., Vers un droit du travail écologique, in Revue de droit du travail, Juillet-
Août 2022.
Peruzzi M., Il dialogo sociale europeo di fronte alle sfide della digitalizzazione, in Diritto delle relazioni
industriali, 4, 2020.
Salvemini L., Dal cambiamento climatico alla modifica della Costituzione: i passi per la tutela del futuro
(non solo nostro), in Federalismi.it, 20, 2021.
Santini G., Costituzione e ambiente: la riforma degli artt. 9 e 41 Cost., in Quaderni Costituzionali, 2,
2021.
Smuraglia C., Regulatory framework and implementation experiences in the field of occupational safety and
hygiene: new perspectives for coordination and urgent interventions, in Rivista giuridica del lavoro e della
previdenza sociale, 2, 2007.
Supiot A., Homo faber: continuità e rotture, in Honneth A., Sennet R., Supiot A., Perché lavoro?,
Feltrinelli, Milan, 2020.
Sychenko E., Labour Rights and International Labour Standards in the ESG Agenda, in Italian
Labour Law e-Journal, 16, 1, 2023, 135-148.
Talarico M., Autonomia collettiva e formazione professionale: il Fondo nuove competenze quale nuovo
strumento di politica attiva, in Ciucciovino S., Garofalo D., Sartori A., Tiraboschi M., Trojsi A.,

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                    98
 Maria Giovannone                                                                 Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                         Issue 2, Vol. 16 (2023)
                                                                                         Section: Miscellaneous




Zoppoli L. (eds.), Flexicurity e mercati transzionali del lavoro. Per una nuova stagione per il diritto del
mercato del lavoro?, ADAPT University Press, Bergamo, 2021.
Tiraboschi M., Nuovi modelli della organizzazione del lavoro e nuovi rischi, in Diritto della sicurezza sul
lavoro, 1, 2021, 136-154.
Tomassetti P., Diritto del lavoro e ambiente, ADAPT University Press, Bergamo, 2018.
Tomassetti P., Statuto dei lavoratori e questione ambientale: dall’autunno caldo ai c.d. global climate
strikes, in Rivista Quadrimestrale di Diritto dell’Ambiente, 2, 2020, 162-192.
Tullini P., Lavoro e responsabilità sociale dell’impresa, Zanichelli, Bologna, 2006.
Tullini P., I dilemmi del caso Ilva e i tormenti del giuslavorista, in Ius17, 3, 2012.
Tullini P., La responsabilità civile per esposizione lavorativa all'amianto: obbligo di sicurezza, limiti
dell'esonero assicurativo e risarcibilità del danno, in Rivista del Diritto della Sicurezza Sociale, 1, 2016.
Zoppoli L., Il danno biologico tra principi costituzionali, rigidità civilistiche e tutela previdenziale, in
Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 3, 2001, 389-395.
Zbyszewska A., Labor law for warming world: Exploring the interSections of work regulation and
environmental sustainability: An introduction, in Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 40, 1, 2018.




Copyright © 2023 Maria Giovannone. This article is released under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/18333                                                                  99
