In the field of sustainability law, the importance of disclosure obligations has increased dramatically in recent years. This is due, on the one hand, to the so called sustainability reporting, which reached its peak with the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), adopted in 2022. The innovation compared to traditional financial reporting lies in the requirement not only to report on the risks posed by ESG factors (Environment – Social – Governance) for the company (the so called outside in perspective), but also on the impacts of the company’s activities on ESG matters (the inside out perspective). On the other hand, supply chain regulation—harmonised in Europe in 2024 through the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD)—also relies heavily on disclosure obligations. In this context, only the inside out perspective is relevant. Although both regulatory acts were later narrowed in scope by the Omnibus Directive adopted at the end of 2025, their core regulatory mechanism has remained intact. In a recent article for a thematic issue of "Die Verwaltung", which is already available online in advance, Prof. Hellgardt analyses the regulatory mechanism of sustainability reporting. He shows that obligations to disclose inside out risks ultimately aim to induce behavioural change in reporting companies through market reactions. At first glance, this mechanism appears to be a “soft law” alternative to more stringent regulation through prohibitions. However, a closer analysis reveals that this regulatory approach faces a wide range of legal and practical challenges that cast considerable doubt on its effectiveness. At the same time, it imposes high compliance costs on companies.

On 5 December 2025, Prof. Hellgardt—together with Prof. Hübner—delivered his inaugural lecture at the University of Augsburg. In light of the troubling developments concerning the rule of law in the United States, he explored the relationship between freedom and private law. The lecture examined this relationship systematically and asked whether private law can contribute to resisting authoritarian tendencies. To that end, three historical and theoretical conceptions of freedom were considered: the formal freedom of the 19th century, the material and procedural freedom of the post war era, and the individualized freedom of the present. Building on this framework, Prof. Hellgardt analysed how modern developments—digitalisation, the personalisation of law, the subscription economy, and identity politics—are transforming private law while simultaneously creating new vulnerabilities: the intensification of social inequality, the fragmentation of the public sphere through digital platforms, and the risks of a data driven, algorithmic totalitarianism. Historical retrospectives on the National Socialist era and the GDR illustrated how easily private law can be instrumentalised for totalitarian purposes. Prof. Hellgardt found two current approaches inadequate: attempts to protect the autonomy of private law through constitutional law, and efforts to revitalise a “logic of private law” detached from fundamental rights. What ultimately matters, he argued, is not private law itself but the attitude of those subject to it: only if private law strengthens personal responsibility can it contribute to a resilient, free society. The text of the inaugural lecture, supplemented with footnotes, will shortly be published in the Juristenzeitung (JZ).

On 31 October and 1 November 2025, Prof. Hellgardt, together with Prof. Busch from the University of Osnabrück, organised a conference titled “The Law between Singularity and Equality” at the Harnack House in Berlin. Under the headings “personalized law” and “granular law,” there is currently an intense debate on the possibilities and limits of data driven law—law that captures social reality in far more granular detail than previously possible. Proponents hope this will lead to a higher degree of justice in individual cases, while critics fear threats to privacy and an erosion of the principle of equality. Against this backdrop, the conference explored whether the relationship between equality and singularity needs to be recalibrated in the data driven society. The tension between singularity and equality was examined from an interdisciplinary perspective. In addition to legal and sociological viewpoints, approaches from other fields—such as data science, ethics, and economics—were included. Across twelve presentations, the topic was analysed from a wide range of angles. It became clear that, in practice, it makes a significant difference whether the law is truly tailored to each individual addressee or merely further granularised. The results of the conference will soon be published as part of a blog symposium on the Oxford Business Law Blog. A conference report will also appear in the Juristenzeitung (JZ). The conference was a joint event within the research projects “Granular Society – Granular Law?” (Christoph Busch, Osnabrück) and “Regulatory Instruments in the Real World” (Alexander Hellgardt, Augsburg), both funded by a Momentum Grant from the Volkswagen Foundation.