Making human rights due diligence a legal requirement for companies including systems to identify, assess, mitigate or manage human rights risks and impacts to improve that process over time and to disclose the risks and impacts, the steps taken and the results.
Direct Consultation with Governments
Comments from the entity submitted through official regulatory and legislative consultation processes, or via meetings and other direct engagements with policymakers. Includes evidence obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests.
The entity seems disagrees with an EU legal framework and considers that, ‘it should be enough to focus on asking companies to follow existing guidelines and standards.’
In response to question 2, the entity prefers a form of soft-law measures rather than legislative measures and thinks it supports, ‘developing a common understanding at EU level, building on the OECD, UN and ILO work it would seem most efficient to focus on how to put the appropriate processes in place.’
Requiring Human rights due diligence of all companies, regardless of sector and size, while still reflecting their individual circumstances.
Direct Consultation with Governments
Comments from the entity submitted through official regulatory and legislative consultation processes, or via meetings and other direct engagements with policymakers. Includes evidence obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests.
The entity is in favour of option 1 ‘Principles-based approach’, however, thinks that ‘SMEs should be excluded with some exceptions’. The entity also considers that due diligence rules should also apply to certain third counties.
In response to question 15, the entity considers that: ‘A general due diligence duty based on key process requirements should be defined at the EU level regarding identification, prevention and mitigation of relevant human rights, social and environmental risks and negative impact. These should be applicable across all sectors. This could be complemented by EU-level general or sector specific guidance or rules, where necessary.’
In response to question 16, the entity believes that for SMEs, OECD’s non-binding guidance is a good start. Regarding the scope of application , the entity considers that it should apply to all companies irrespective of the type of funding and due diligence duties should developed to allow as many companies as possible to comply.
In response to question 17, the entity states that, although it does not support the introduction of any legal obligations in due diligence, it believes that ‘third country companies should be subject to the same obligations as similar EU companies, when they are operating in the EU.’
Implementing an enforcement mechanism where companies fail to carry out due diligence as described.
Direct Consultation with Governments
Comments from the entity submitted through official regulatory and legislative consultation processes, or via meetings and other direct engagements with policymakers. Includes evidence obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests.
The entity is in favour of: ‘Supervision by competent national authorities (option 2) with a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination to ensure consistency throughout the EU.’
In response to question 19a, the entity states that, ‘there should be guidance and not mandatory requirements’, and believes that, ‘the best way forward would be to combine due diligence guidance with disclosure rules’.
Including in the duties of directors and company law obligations to avoid human rights impacts or “harms”.
Direct Consultation with Governments
Comments from the entity submitted through official regulatory and legislative consultation processes, or via meetings and other direct engagements with policymakers. Includes evidence obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests.
The entity disagrees to some extent on directors’ legal duty to identify the company’s stakeholders and their interests, and balance the interests of all stakeholders. The entity strongly disagrees with directors’ legal responsibilities to identify, prevent and address possible risks and impacts.
In response to question 6, the entity states that, ‘in general no regulatory action would be required to set an incentive here. These kinds of considerations are already included in many corporate governance codes. While all stakeholders and their interests should be included when identifying risks, it does not necessarily make sense to manage the risks of all stakeholders equally.’ Overall, the entity supports maintaining the principles for corporate governance in the existing format of codes.
In response to question 7, the entity thinks that: ‘a legal obligation would lead to an unjustified burden on companies if the principle of proportionality is not guaranteed. principles and frameworks already exist that support corporate directors in addressing ESG risks with their stakeholders.’ The entity suggests maintaining the principles developed by the OECD on Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct and encourages the EU to cooperate with the OECD.
In response to question 8, although the entity acknowledges that it is a natural part of directors’ duties to balance the interests of all stakeholders, the entity suggest that guidance should remain as recommendations and, ‘strongly disagree that the duty of care needs further clarification in legislation.’
Require companies to provide remedy for human rights impacts they have caused or contributed to.
Direct Consultation with Governments
Comments from the entity submitted through official regulatory and legislative consultation processes, or via meetings and other direct engagements with policymakers. Includes evidence obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests.
The entity picks: ‘Supervision by competent national authorities (option 2) with a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination to ensure consistency throughout the EU.’
In response to question 19, the entity states that, ‘there should be guidance and not mandatory requirements’, and the entity believes that, ‘the best way forward would be to combine due diligence guidance with disclosure rules’.
In response to question 14, the entity generally agrees with the definition of due diligence; however, it thinks, ‘due diligence duties are to be interpreted inherently risk-based, proportionate and context-specific.’
Require companies to provide grievance mechanisms for all stakeholders including those in the value chain.
Direct Consultation with Governments
Comments from the entity submitted through official regulatory and legislative consultation processes, or via meetings and other direct engagements with policymakers. Includes evidence obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests.
The entity disagrees to some extent on requirements for directors to establish and apply consultation mechanisms for engaging with stakeholders.
In response to question 20a, the entity does not believe, ‘the EU should add legal requirements’ and thinks that, ‘developing recommendations in soft law, such as corporate governance codes, would possibly be a useful way forward.’
Enabling judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence obligations.
Direct Consultation with Governments
Comments from the entity submitted through official regulatory and legislative consultation processes, or via meetings and other direct engagements with policymakers. Includes evidence obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests.
The entity picks: ‘Supervision by competent national authorities (option 2) with a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination to ensure consistency throughout the EU’.
In response to question 19, the entity states that, ‘there should be guidance and not mandatory requirements’. The entity also believes that, ‘the best way forward would be to combine due diligence guidance with disclosure rules.’
Require companies to implement a due diligence process covering their value chain to identify, prevent, mitigate and remediate human rights impacts and improve that practice over time.
Direct Consultation with Governments
Comments from the entity submitted through official regulatory and legislative consultation processes, or via meetings and other direct engagements with policymakers. Includes evidence obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests.
The entity disagrees with an EU legal framework and considers that ‘it should be enough to focus on asking companies to follow existing guidelines and standards.’ The entity picks the option 1 ’principles-based approach’. Regarding value chains, it seems that the entity does not support high administrative costs to monitor supply chains.
In response to question 2, the entity considers that it is enough to focus on existing guidelines and standards. However, it states that if legislative measures were to be proposed, it suggests that ‘the scope of potential due diligence obligations in the supply chain should be clearly differentiated. Companies should be prevented from incurring high administrative costs by monitoring their supply chains down to the last link in the chain regarding due diligence obligations.’
In response to question 14, the entity generally agrees with the definition of due diligence.
In response to question 15, the entity picks up ‘Principles-based approach’ and states that a general due diligence duty should be defined at EU level and these should be applicable across all sectors.
Require that companies identify their stakeholders and their interests.
Direct Consultation with Governments
Comments from the entity submitted through official regulatory and legislative consultation processes, or via meetings and other direct engagements with policymakers. Includes evidence obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests.
The entity seems to agree with the requirement to identify companies’ stakeholders and their interests.
In response to question 6, the entity states that ‘Identifying stakeholders, functioning and comprehensive risk management are a precondition for the successful management of a company’, and guidance is, ‘included in many corporate governance codes’, ‘all stakeholders and their interests should be included when identifying risks’.
Require directors to establish and apply mechanisms or, where they already exist for employees for example, use existing information and consultation channels for engaging with stakeholders.
Direct Consultation with Governments
Comments from the entity submitted through official regulatory and legislative consultation processes, or via meetings and other direct engagements with policymakers. Includes evidence obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests.
The entity disagrees to some extent on the requirements for directors to establish and apply consultation mechanisms for engaging with stakeholders.
In response to question 20a, the entity does not believe, ‘the EU should add legal requirements’, and thinks that, ‘developing recommendations in soft law, such as corporate governance codes, would possibly be a useful way forward.’
Require that action plans are developed in consultation with affected stakeholders.
Direct Consultation with Governments
Comments from the entity submitted through official regulatory and legislative consultation processes, or via meetings and other direct engagements with policymakers. Includes evidence obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests.
The entity disagrees to some extent on directors’ responsibility to identify companies’ stakeholder and their interests. However, the entity seems to also agree with the requirement to identify companies’ stakeholders and their interests, once again, to some extent.
In response to question 6, the entity states that, ‘Identifying stakeholders, functioning and comprehensive risk management are a precondition for the successful management of a company’, and guidance is, ‘included in many corporate governance codes’, ‘all stakeholders and their interests should be included when identifying risks’.
Require that corporate directors should manage the human rights risks for the company in relation to stakeholders and their interest including on the long run.
Direct Consultation with Governments
Comments from the entity submitted through official regulatory and legislative consultation processes, or via meetings and other direct engagements with policymakers. Includes evidence obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests.
The entity disagrees to some extent on directors’ responsibility to identify companies’ stakeholders and their interests and strongly disagrees with a directors’ legal responsibility to set up adequate procedures on possible risks and impacts.
In response to question 6, the entity states that, ‘identifying stakeholders, functioning and comprehensive risk management’, are already included in many corporate governance codes. The entity believes legislative measures, specifically aimed at directors, would be inappropriate and believes further developments of such principles should be made within the framework of existing corporate governance codes.
In response to question 7, the entity does not ‘agree that directors should be required by law to set up adequate procedures and targets to ensure that ESG risks and adverse impacts on stakeholders are identified, prevented and addressed.’ The entity prefers, ‘the principles already developed by the OECD on Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct’, and thinks it is helpful and should remain.
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Industry Association | Performance band |
|---|---|
| econsense | E- |
