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 appears to ask for clarification of definitions.
"Safeguarding a Coherent Transposition by Unambiguous Definitions: Currently, the definitions of “appropriate measures”, “established business relationships”, “principal risks” or “principle adverse impacts” are too vague and leave a considerable amount of flexibility for the national transposition. To achieve greater harmonisation in due diligence and to create a level playing field, it is necessary to make the definitions clearer."
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 appears to support mandatory legislation. However, the statement does not represent a proactive call for legislation.
Question 2: Yes, an EU legal framework is needed. Question 3a: "There might arise difficulties for the expansion of renewable energies because of problematic supply chains with regards to pv panels or raw materials. With a sensible formulation of the law, we can avoid the points listed above. It should also be avoided that there is a trade-off between various sustainability goals, such as human rights and climate protection." Question 15: Option 2: “Minimum process and definitions approach”: "The EU should define a minimum set of requirements with regard to the necessary processes (see in option 1) which should be applicable across all sectors. Furthermore, this approach would provide harmonised definitions for example as regards the coverage of adverse impacts that should be the subject of the due diligence obligation and could rely on EU and international human rights conventions, including ILO labour conventions, or other conventions, where relevant. Minimum requirements could be complemented by sector specific guidance or further rules, where necessary."
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 appears to support general coverage with minor caveats for SMEs.
Question 15: Option 2. “Minimum process and definitions approach”: The EU should define a minimum set of requirements with regard to the necessary processes (see in option 1) which should be applicable across all sectors. Furthermore, this approach would provide harmonised definitions for example as regards the coverage of adverse impacts that should be the subject of the due diligence obligation and could rely on EU and international human rights conventions, including ILO labour conventions, or other conventions, where relevant. Minimum requirements could be complemented by sector specific guidance or further rules, where necessary. Question 16: SMEs should be subject to lighter requirements (“principles-based” or “minimum process and definitions” approaches as indicated in Question 15) Question 17: Yes
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 appears to support an enforcement mechanism. However, the statement does not represent a proactive call for legislation.
Question 19a: Judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence obligations.
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 appears to oppose any legislating on this issue. The statement points to existing practice and legislation as sufficient.
Question 6: the company responds 'I strongly disagree' to all three sub-questions Please explain 1: "All of the above mentioned points are part of the successful management of a company and are therefore a core interest of the directors of the company themselves. For this reason, we do not see a need for additional regulatory measures. In addition, some of the above mentionend measures are already part of the national governance codes. We therefore believe that it is appropriate for the directors to take these into account in their decision-making, but not for this to be required by law." Question 7: I disagree to some extent. Please explain 2: "We recommend to limit the law to human rights and the responsibility for appropriate due diligence processes in the company."
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.
Th entity appears to support remediation in the form of compensation. However, the statement does not represent a proactive call for legislation.
Question 19a: Judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence obligations
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 appears to oppose civil liability.
"Preventing Additional Civil Liability: The introduction of extensive civil liability rules for the provisions of the Directive would create enormous legal uncertainty and the risk of excessive litigation for companies with complex supply chains. The enforcement mechanism should rely on sanctions and administrative enforcement."
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 appears to support civil liability. However, the statement does not represent a proactive call for legislation.
Question 19a: Judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence obligations
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 appears to suggest caveats for supply-chain tiers beyond tier 1.
"Refining the Scope of Due Diligence: Currently, it is almost impossible for companies to monitor the entire supply chain according to the requirements of the CSDD without legal uncertainties arising. To ensure feasibility and the realistic possibility of achieving the objectives of the Directive, the due diligence requirements should differentiate between comprehensive requirements for direct suppliers and reasonable requirements for indirect suppliers."
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 appears to suggest that complex supply chains could present a problem. However, the position on the coverage of the full value chain is unclear.
Question 14: We disagree with this definition. The extension of a “due diligence duty” on health and, in particular, environmental impacts inevitably leads to legal uncertainty, because virtually every service/purchased product in some way or another has a (negative) effect on health and environment (e.g. noise/emissions etc.). More so, taking into account the broad definition of a supply chain, it becomes virtually impossible to evaluate every business relationship on its impact on health and environmental impacts. As a consequence, we recommend to narrow down the definition of a due diligence duty to “human rights” which– implicitly – also extents to severe health and environmental issues, but excludes a due diligence duty for socially recognized health and environmental issues. This brings the advantage that the due diligence duty, first of all, becomes more manageable for companies and, second, more effective. A rather broad definition, on the other hand, is in danger of being ineffective, because companies might focus on different/wrong effects of their actions. Question 3a: There might arise difficulties for the expansion of renewable energies because of problematic supply chains with regards to pv panels or raw materials. With a sensible formulation of the law, we can avoid the points listed above. It should also be avoided that there is a trade-off between various sustainability goals, such as human rights and climate protection.
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 appears to oppose legislation of this issue.
Question 6: The company response 'I strongly disagree to all three sub-questionsPlease explain 1: All of the above mentioned points are part of the successful management of a company and are therefore a core interest of the directors of the company themselves. For this reason, we do not see a need for additional regulatory measures. In addition, some of the above mentionend measures are already part of the national governance codes. We therefore believe that it is appropriate for the directors to take these into account in their decision-making, but not for this to be required by law.
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 appears to oppose binding legislation on this issue.
Question 20a: I disagree to some extent. Please explain: "We think companies should use these channels to engage with stakeholders, but they should not be required by law to do so."
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 appears to oppose legislation on this issue.
Question 6: The company response 'I strongly disagree to all three sub-questions. Please explain 1: "All of the above mentioned points are part of the successful management of a company and are therefore a core interest of the directors of the company themselves. For this reason, we do not see a need for additional regulatory measures. In addition, some of the above mentioned measures are already part of the national governance codes. We therefore believe that it is appropriate for the directors to take these into account in their decision-making, but not for this to be required by law."
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 appears to oppose legislating on this issue.
Question 6: The company response 'I strongly disagree to all three sub-questions Please explain 1: "All of the above mentioned points are part of the successful management of a company and are therefore a core interest of the directors of the company themselves. For this reason, we do not see a need for additional regulatory measures. In addition, some of the above mentioned measures are already part of the national governance codes. We therefore believe that it is appropriate for the directors to take these into account in their decision-making, but not for this to be required by law."
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Industry Association | Performance band |
|---|---|
| BUSINESSEUROPE | F |
| econsense | E- |
