Decathlon

In favour of a legal framework and legislation based on a minimum process and definitions as asked in consultation without further details.

The Company agrees that EU legislation is needed for supply chain due diligence to address adverse impacts on human rights. It also agrees with the definition of DDD provided by the consultation and is in favour of a: "minimum process and definitions approach ... complemented with further requirements in particular for environmental issues".

The entity cautions against deregulation of sustainability legislation including the CSDDD

"… Additionally, new laws on corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence promote greater climate ambition and transparency on environmental action, and create a level playing field by also applying to foreign companies active in the EU. Implementing these laws requires time, resources and effort by businesses, as well as trust that investments undertaken to get ready for the application of these laws are not in vain. Deregulation, whether through lowering environmental or social standards, reneging on international commitments, or reducing the EU’s climate ambition, threatens the stable and predictable legal framework that we depend on. We urge the European Commission to support businesses in successfully implementing existing and upcoming environmental standards — by prioritising smart implementation ...

The statement calls for preserving the core of the EU sustainable finance framework, including corporate due diligence, considering that regulatory simplification can be achieved without compromising the substance of the new rules.

Signatories ‘are issuing this joint statement to emphasise the importance of preserving the core of the EU sustainable finance framework. Rules on … corporate due diligence are a key foundation for achieving the EU’s economic and sustainability goals. … In the context of the Omnibus I simplification initiative, we call attention to the investors, banks, other financial institutions and companies across our economy that support preserving the core elements of the … Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). … CSRD/ESRS and CSDDD are essential for achieving the EU’s wider sustainability, growth and competitiveness ambitions. … The signatories of this statement consider that regulatory simplification can be achieved without compromising on the substance of sustainability rules or their significant benefits for businesses across the EU’.

In favour of including all companies and sectors, even if SMEs have help and are subject to lighter requirements.

The Company is in favour of an horizontal approach (covering all sectors), and all companies; however, SMEs should be subject to lighter requirements, including funding, capacity building support, non-binding guidelines for the needs of SMEs in particular and toolbox or national helpdesk.

The entity cautions against exemptions from sustainability legislations such as the CSDDD based on sector and size

"Avoiding blanket exemptions of sectors or company sizes which can create unfair competition, harm consumer trust and further complicate supply chains. Given the proportionality principle, EU legislation often already provides longer timeframes and lighter processes for SMEs."

In favour of supervision by national authorities with a coordination mechanism.

To Question 19a: the Company answers that is in favour of: "Supervision by competent national authorities (option 2) with a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination to ensure consistency throughout the EU"

The Company's response is ambiguous.

The Company agrees "to some extent" that corporate directors should be require to "manage the risks for the company in relation to stakeholders and their interests" and that: "corporate directors should be required by law to set up adequate procedures and, where relevant, measurable ... targets to ensure possible risks ... are identified, prevented and addressed". However, when explaining its position in relation to the latter, it states that: 'in addition to our board members, all teammates in Decathlon are committed and engaged to include due diligence in their daily job through indicators and data. We would welcome the Commission efforts to harmonize such measurable targets". Hence, the Company is not clarifying whether it agrees that duties of corporate directors should be required by law to avoid human rights impacts.

Although the company agrees 'to some extent' with requiring mechanisms for stakeholder consultation as part of the due diligence duty, it considers complaint mechanisms to be best practice and does not support making them mandatory.

The Company agrees 'to some extent' with a requirement (for directors) to establish mechanisms for engaging in stakeholder consultation as part of due diligence duty (question 20a). It then states that, 'we already have this kind of channel, we would appreciate if the Commission could provide guidelines' and clarify that: 'our channels are open to everyone'. However, it only considers a grievance mechanism being part of due diligence as 'best practice'.

The Company doesn't consider this a suitable option as an enforcement mechanism.

Question 19a asks about enforcement mechanisms through a multiple-choice format, one of which is: 'judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence obligations'. The company did not select this as one of its preferred measures.

The Company is in favour of applying due diligence duty, including to the supply chain. It does not refer, to the whole value chain, including downstream.

The Company agrees (question 14) with the definition of due diligence duty provided in the consultation, adding that: "we should engage the tiers in the sustainbility due diligence". It is also in favour, as per response to question 15, in a "minimum process and definitions approach ... complemented with further requirements, in particular for environmental issues". It is not clear, however, if they are in favour of applying this criteria downstream, and remediating impacts, as it is not asked by the consultation questionnaire, and the Company does not refer to it either.

The statement calls for not limiting due diligence to tier-1 suppliers.

It states that 'the most salient ... risks and impacts often lie deeper in supply chains. A risk-based approach to due diligence is helpful to companies as this allows them to focus on where the real risks are, building on their knowledge of their own supply chains. By limiting due diligence to tier 1 suppliers, the Omnibus proposal may unintentionally promote the kind of “box ticking” compliance exercises that it intends to reduce'.

The Company disagrees with question 6, which includes a legal requirement to identify stakeholders.

In response to question 5 the Company considers all stakeholders presented as relevant. However, the entity disagrees 'to some extent' with question 6, which asks about a legal requirement for corporate directors to: 'identify the Company's stakeholders and their interests'. Then it states that: 'stakeholders engagement has been part of our company policy for years. We believe this area needs to be agile and to adapt to our company transformation, and also the continuous changing external context'.

The Company agrees 'to some extent' to this question. However, it is not clear what their actual position is, indicating that it already has a channel like this.

Question 20a directly asks the question required by the indicator, to which the company agrees "to some extent". The explanation, however, does not clarify which aspects it agrees with and what reservations it may have, indicating that 'we already have this kind of channel'. Having a channel does not necessarily imply that their is director responsibility on this matter.

The consultation doesn't ask about this and the Company's explanations don't refer to these aspects.

Although the Company responds that it already has, "this kind of channel," referring to a mechanism for stakeholder engagement to ensure inclusion in company's due diligence process; it does not clarify whether it is in favour of stakeholders participating in the actual risk & impact action plans.

The Company agrees "to some extent" when directly asked about this. No further comment.

The Company agrees "to some extent" when directly asked about this. No further comment was given, including as to whether this should be a requirement for corporate directors.