Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.
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 Company seems to agree that an EU minimum framework is needed although they are not taking an open support for the level of ambition proposed, including whether they are in favour of a legal framework.
Despite picking the option that indicates that a legal framework is needed in question 2, the company points out that the question 'may look biased' as it excludes the possibility of 'new guidance non-legally binding'. It then states that 'in general terms, Intesa Sanpaolo is favorable to an EU minimum framework (is indeed to be preferred over national legislation), but we ask for a blanced and cost-efficient approach. In fact, the implementation of such framework could require a lot of resources for the EU enterprises. ... we confirm that from an investor perspective, we indeed pay increased attention to the sustainability of the entire 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 welcomes the Proposal (proposal for a Directive on CSDD).
The Company states that it: 'welcomes the Proposal and believes it is a necessaryt milestone in order to contribute to the achievement of European Union's sustainability objectives.' It refers to the other proposal for a Directive on CSDD adopted in February 2022.
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.
Although it advocates for a due diligence approach that is applicable across all sectors and advocates for lighter requirements for SMEs and non-binding guidelines, considers that Micro-enterprises (less than 10 employees should be excluded).
In response to question 15 the Company advocates for a minimum process and definitions approach that is applicable across all sectors. It states that the approach 'should ensure an appropriate combination of flexibility with a consisten framework across countries and sectors'. In realtion to size coverage, it advocates for excluding micro-enterprises (less than 10 employees) and provide guidance support and lighter requirements to SMEs.
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 Company states that leaving SMEs receiving loan, credit, financing, insurance or reinsurance is not sufficient and asks for a complete exclusion of SMEs.
The Company states that: 'We support the definition of value chain for financial firms: limiting it to clients that are large undertakings is necessary in order to ensure a realistic applicability of the due diligence obligations. The exclusion of small and medium-sized enterprises is consistent with the difficult balance that the Directive aims to achieve, and it is important that it is preserved during the legislative process. We note that the exclusion of “SMEs receiving loan, credit, financing, insurance or reinsurance” is insufficient to cover the breadth of financial services that are provided to SMEs (e.g. payments services). A new wording introducing a general exclusion of SMEs from the value chain of regulated financial undertakings is needed.'
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 Company advocates for supervision by national authorities with a mechanism of cooperation/coordination to ensure consistency throughout the EU
In response to question 19 on enforcement mechanisms, the Company advocates for: 'Supervision by competent national authorities (option 2) with a mechanism of EU cooperation/ coordination to ensure consistency throughout the EU'. It adds that: 'Supervision by competent national authorities based on complaints (and/or reporting, where relevant) enables adequate flexibility but at the same time discretionary behaviour has to be guided/controlled with a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination in order to level the playing field throughout the EU.' This is a multiple choice question and the company only picks this option.
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 Company agrees 'to some extent' to require, by law, for corporate directors to set up procedures to ensure that possible risks and impacts on human rights are identified, prevented and addressed. However, it does not seem that it welcomes such a measure.
In its response to question 7, besides agreeing to some extent, it also adds: 'If an EU legal obligation were introduced for corporate directors to ensure that possible risks and adverse impacts on stakeholders ... are identified, prevented and addressed, it should not be accompanied by a prescriptive requirement or certain processes, procedures and targets. It should be left to companies to identify relevant stakeholders and contextualise their ESG risk management practices in terms of concrete ESG issues and stakeholders identified.'
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.
Entity focus on enforcement rather than remedy.It does not provide its views on remedy.
Question 19a: "Supervision by competent national authorities based on complaints (and/or reporting, where relevant) enables adequate flexibility but at the same time discretionary behaviour has to be guided/controlled with a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination in order to level the playing field throughout the EU."
Require companies to exert leverage on and/or provide support to their counterparties in the remediation of human rights impacts that are linked to company activities through their business relationships (e.g their value chains).
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 neither favours or opposes, rather asks for clarification.
We acknowledge the attention paid in the Proposal to the essentiality of the services and products offered by the financial sector, including the derogation from the termination of the relationship with a client as a means of remedying its adverse impacts on environmental matters and human rights. In this sense, however, it is necessary to better detail what is meant specifically by 'substantial prejudice', at the base of the aforementioned derogation in the Proposal. The nature of the services offered by the banking sector makes them vital for clients' financial balance. It is therefore difficult to understand which occasions are not considered essential, and then insufficient for triggering the derogation.
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 Company considers that having a complaint mechanism as part of due diligence should be promoted at the EU level as a mechanism for engagement. It agrees to some extent that the EU should require directors to establish mechanisms for engaging with stakeholders and considers all stakeholders presented in the consultation to be relevant. However, it does not advocate for it to be a legal requirement.
The Company agrees, 'to some extent', that the EU should require directors to establish mechanisms and consultation channels for engaging with stakeholders on due diligence duty (question 20a). It adds that: 'Engaging stakeholders is necessary, it is a pre-requisite to guarantee proper multi-stakeholder corporate governance ... However strict law requirement may be difficult to apply while, guidance and recommendations could be more effective in this phasing-in. In particular, we believe that “Codes of Conduct” may represent the most appropriate means to enhance the dialogue with relevant stakeholders and assure a good governance practice.' The company considers that any complaint mechanism as part of due diligence, 'should be promoted at the EU level.' Finally, the Company considers all stakeholder groups presented in question 5 as relevant. These include employees and communities in the supply chain, as well as customers.
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 Company doesn't consider this a suitable option as an enforcement mechanism.
Question 19a provides multiple options for companies to pick an enforcement mechanism from, and this one is not among those picked by the Company.
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 Company advocates for a mimum process and definitions approach to due diligence duty. Although it largely agrees with due diligence definition it asks for clarification in key terms without taking position. It does not refer to remedy.
In relation to the approach to due diligence duty, the Company advocates for a mimum process and definitions approach to due diligence duty (question 15). It largely agres with the definition of the duty (question 14), as long as it includes identification and includes environmental issues beyond climate. It indicates that as an investor it pays increased attention to the sustainbility of the entire value chain (explanation to question 2), although does not indicate if it considers that due diligence duty should include the entire value chain including for it as a company and asks for clarification (question 14) . It does not refer to remedy.
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 company believes that the value chain only covers clients that have great involvement in the process and that due diligence obligation only covers the onboarding phase for new clients (asked for clarification but this is the assumption made by the Company). Although it does not directly refer to remediation, it seems to advocate for the termination of the relationship as a means of remedy, alleging the essentiality of the nature of financial services.
The Company states that: 'We support the definition of value chain for financial firms: limiting it to clients that are large undertakings is necessary in order to ensure a realistic applicability of the due diligence obligations.' It also states that: 'In order to properly assess the effect of the obligations of the Directive on financial undertakings’ operations, a clear definition of customer relationship processes impacted is needed. In view of the objectives of the Directive, we assume that the due diligence obligation for financial undertakings concerns only the phase of onboarding of new clients, and not already established relationships (e.g. the opening of further contracts or the provisions of financial services following the first). Clarification in this respect is essential.' Finally, they conclude with the following: 'We acknowledge the attention paid in the Proposal to the essentiality of the services and products offered by the financial sector, including the derogation from the termination of the relationship with a client as a means of remedying its adverse impacts on environmental matters and human rights. In this sense, however, it is necessary to better detail what is meant specifically by "substantial prejudice", at the base of the aforementioned derogation in the Proposal. The nature of the services offered by the banking sector makes them vital for clients’ financial balance. It is therefore difficult to understand which occasions are not considered essential, and then insufficient for triggering the derogation.'
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 company agrees to some extent that corporate directors should be required by law to identify companies' stakeholders and their interests.
In response to question 6 on the requirement of stakeholder identification, the Company states that it agrees, 'to some extent.' It goes on to say: 'We would like to point out once again that listed companies, at least in Italy, are already subject to those requirements without the need of a legally binding approach. ... Moreover, the banks in the European Union are required to be compliant to the supervisory provisions on ESG matters ... providing for specific responsibilities of the Management Body. We encourage the Commission to think how to bring the same requirements (in a balanced and proportionated manners) also to non-listed companies and to other sectors that are less supervised and regulated than the financial sector. In this perspective, these requirements should be also adjusted taking into account the differences in terms of dimensions, goals and activities of companies (e.g. cooperative companies, financial companies, non-financial companies, etc.).' It is not clear if the position of the Company supports the measure proposed by the indicator and the questionnaire in a similar way for all sectors and whether it agrees with it being a legal requirement.
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.
It agrees to some extent that the EU should require directors to establish mechanisms for engaging with stakeholders and considers all stakeholders presented in the consultation to be relevant. However, it does not advocate for it to be a legal requirement.
The Company agrees 'to some extent', that the EU should require directors to establish mechanisms and consultation channels for engaging with stakeholders on due diligence duty (question 20a). It adds that: 'Engaging stakeholders is necessary, it is a pre-requisite to guarantee proper multi-stakeholder corporate governance ... However strict law requirement may be difficult to apply while, guidance and recommendations could be more effective in this phasing-in. In particular, we believe that “Codes of Conduct” may represent the most appropriate means to enhance the dialogue with relevant stakeholders and assure a good governance practice.' The Company considers all stakeholder groups presented in question 5 as relevant. These include employees and communities in the supply chain, as well as customers.
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 Company agrees to some extent that corporate directors should be required by law to manage the risks in relation to stakeholders and their interests.
In response to question 6 on requirement of stakeholder risk management the Company states that it agrees, 'to some extent'. Then it states the following: 'We would like to point out once again that listed companies, at least in Italy, are already subject to those requirements without the need of a legally binding approach. ... Moreover, the banks in the European Union are required to be compliant to the supervisory provisions on ESG matters ... providing for specific responsibilities of the Management Body. We encourage the Commission to think how to bring the same requirements (in a balanced and proportionated manners) also to non-listed companies and to other sectors that are less supervised and regulated than the financial sector. In this perspective, these requirements should be also adjusted taking into account the differences in terms of dimensions, goals and activities of companies (e.g. cooperative companies, financial companies, non-financial companies, etc.).' It is not clear if the position of the company is to support the measure proposed by the indicator and the questionnaire in a similar way for all sectors, as it calls to factor in different considerations, and whether it agrees with it being a legal requirement.
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Industry Association | Performance band |
|---|---|
| Associazione Nazionale fra le Imprese Assicuratrici (ANIA) | E |
