Amfori

In its post on LinkedIn, Amfori expresses clear support for the existence of a mandatory legal framework for due diligence, as long as it aligns with existing practices and international standards. It publicly supports the approval of the political agreement on the CSDDD

The statement indicates “We have been supportive of the idea of an EU-wide framework for responsible business conduct since the very start...”“We therefore call on EU policymakers to endorse the political agreement...”

The entity considers that a legal framework on due diligence is needed, preferably a Regulation, and that it should be an ongoing, proactive process driven by continuous improvement

In response to question 2, the entity considers thata an EU legal framework is needed, as it could help to level the playing field, maximise the efforts of all those involved, streamline approaches, etc. It also sates that 'due diligence is intended to be an ongoing, proactive process driven by continuous improvement'. It advocates for combining elements of different approaches, including cross-sectorial princples-based approach togeteher with minimum process and definitions approach. In addition, it advocates for a Regulation instead of Directive: 'A Directive risks undermining the primary objective of harmonisation since it would need to be embodied into national legislation. A Regulation, on the contrary, could ensure there is no differentiated approach at national level'.

Based on the joint letter “Support for EU framework on mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence,” signed by this entity: “We... welcome the announcement by the European Commissioner for Justice... that the European Commission will launch a legislative initiative on mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence.” “Mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence is key to ensure that efforts by companies that respect people and the planet... are not undercut by the lack of a uniform standard...” “Legislation introducing an obligation to conduct due diligence as defined by the UNGPs... is critical to bring all companies to the same standard...”

The statement, demonstrates clear and direct support for the creation of mandatory legislation on human rights and environmental due diligence, recognizing the importance of standardizing business conduct. The statement actively supports the creation of a binding directive on due diligence, advocating for it as essential to establishing a uniform and competitive standard.

The entity advocates for a horizontal, cross-sectoral approach to due diligence and does not support excluding any company based on size.

In response to question 15, the entity states that 'To bring scattered efforts to scale, to create a level playing field and to generate more leeway along supply chains, a horizontal, cross-sectoral diligence duty based on key process requirements appears to be the right approach’. Question 16 asks how the burden can be reduced for smaller companies, including the option of excluding them from the legislation. The entity does not select any of the proposed exclusions, and instead advocates for providing guidance and support to SMEs

Based on the joint letter “Support for EU framework on mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence,” signed by this entity: “...legislation introducing an obligation to conduct due diligence as defined by the UNGPs and covering all business actors is critical to bring all companies to the same standard…”“EU-wide cross-sectoral legislation... should harmonise these expectations…”

The letter explicitly advocates that all companies, regardless of sector or size, should be subject to the legislation, reinforcing the idea of a "level playing field." The statement supports the universal application of the regulation, without sectoral or business-size exceptions, fully meeting the indicator.

The entity advocates for supervision by national authorities based on complaints (and/or reporting) about non-compliance with setting up and implementing due diligence measures, etc. with effective sanctions (such as fines). This should include a coordinating mechanism.

The entity advocates for supervision by national authorities based on complaints (and/or reporting) about non-compliance with setting up and implementing due diligence measures, etc. with effective sanctions (such as fines). In its response to question 19a it also adds: '‘The EU needs to design a smart mix of policy measures, including incentives such as import duties, changes in public procurement policies, taxonomy, trade and investment policies. Continuous improvement is key: the forthcoming legislation needs to encourage companies to collaborate with their suppliers and business partners. Businesses should not be regarded as non-compliant where they did all that was reasonably expected. Non-compliance should be limited to instances where there is a total lack of HRDD, false statements or gross negligence. Instances of non-compliance should be proportionate to the leverage of the company and commensurate with the adverse impact, in particular for SMEs’.

Based on the joint letter “Support for EU framework on mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence,” signed by this entity: "Mandatory legislation can... clarify legal consequences for when responsibilities are not met...”

The statement advocates that the legislation should establish clear legal consequences for non-compliance with due diligence obligations. Implicit support for enforcement mechanisms. Although it lacks detailed specifications (such as civil or administrative sanctions), the acknowledgment of the importance of legal consequences justifies a positive score

The entity considers that companies should provide remediation where appropriate.

In response to question 15, regarding due diligence duty approach, the entity states the following:'companies operating in the EU should be required to act diligently by understanding the risks and impacts they cause, contribute to or may be directly linked to; by managing them on the basis of a prioritised approach and by providing remediation where appropriate'.

The entity recognises the relevance of leverage in the enforcement context, but does not explicitly refer to support for remediation efforts.

In response to question 19, the entity states that: 'Businesses should not be regarded as non-compliant where they did all that was reasonably expected. Non-compliance should be limited to instances where there is a total lack of HRDD, false statements or gross negligence. Instances of non-compliance should be proportionate to the leverage of the company and commensurate with the adverse impact, in particular for SMEs'.

The entity considers that grievance mechanisms as part of due diligence duty should be promoted at the EU level.

In its response to question 20c, the entity considers that 'workers' voice, local communities complaints and grievance mechanisms' should be promoted at the EU level as part of companies' due diligence requirements. It is not clear, however, if it advocates for grievance mechanisms being available to all stakeholders, including those in the value chain. In relation to stakeholder representation, it states that: 'Since a company may be linked to very many different stakeholders, each company should conduct an assessment of the most relevant stakeholders and prioritise engagement with those / their proxies that are deemed most relevant on the basis of a risk and impact analysis'.

The entity doesn't consider this a suitable option as 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 entity did not select this as one of its preferred measures, nor did it mention liability and compensation in its explanation to the question.

The entity calls for clarification in relation to some terms of contained in due diligence duty defintion. It does not refer to scope of due diligence, although it does refer to remedy where appropriate and that due diligence should be an ongoing, proactive process driven by continuous improvement.

The entity considers that an EU legal framework on due diligence is needed (question 2). In relation to due diligence duty definition (question 14), it states that 'Both the notions of “business relationship” and that of “reasonable efforts” are not clearly defined. Therefore, we anticipate that the lack of clarity will lead to differing interpretations and potentially to confusion as to what it is expected of businesses. Any definitions of due diligence duty should be anchored to international normative frameworks like the UNGPs and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Due diligence is intended to be an ongoing, proactive process driven by continuous improvement. It is conducted in a way that is proportionate to the company’s size and leverage in the supply chain. It helps companies understand and progressively increase the knowledge of their supply chains. Its primary objective is preventative in nature, though due diligence is also about identifying, mitigating, accounting for and eventually remediating adverse impacts when appropriate … As part of their due diligence efforts, companies should be allowed to prioritise risks in their supply chains on the basis of their leverage, degree of involvement with the adverse impact, severity and likelihood of the risk materialising. … A company's actions, subsequent responsibility and annexed accountability should be nuanced depending on its degree of “involvement” with the negative impact, i.e. whether a company caused, contributed to or was directly linked to an adverse impact. This approach should be aligned with the UNGPs'. Finally, it advocates for a combination of principles-based and minimum requirements approach, applied across sectors.

The statement advocates for enforcing due diligence in own operations and 'value chains'.

The statements shows support for the Directive in general, and also states that: 'The Directive aims to harmonise requirements for companies to carry out due diligence in their own operations, subsidiaries and value chains, thereby ensuring an EU-wide level playing field and avoiding market fragmentation. This common standard should be effectively enforced, recognising the need for a balanced combination of administrative enforcement and civil liability, as well as access to justice measures'.

The entity advocates for the proposal to consider specific risks and impacts of business activities on vulnerable groups and calls for the use of stakeholder engagement, capacity building and colalboartion with business partners in due diligence and when working on adverse impacts.

The entity states that: ‘Once this assessment is completed and a vulnerability lens applied throughout the process, businesses can prioritise their actions on the basis of the severity and likelihood of the risk materializing. The current proposal moves away from this spirit and asks that companies look at the nature of their business relationships instead of focusing on where risks might be the most severe. The proposal further remains silent on the need to account for the specific risks and differentiated impacts of business activities on vulnerable groups such as women, migrant workers and children. We encourage the EU Institutions to reconsider this point by organising the HREDD logic in alignment with the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines. This would mean first and foremost embedding a risk-based approach and the related logic of prioritisation within the proposed due diligence duty. It would also mean expecting businesses to apply a vulnerability lens throughout the due diligence process.' It also points out that: ‘The Directive could also make it clearer that capacity building, engagement with stakeholders and collaboration with business partners are equally important tools to be leveraged when undertaking due diligence and when working on adverse impacts’.

The entity supports the use of contract clauses, but only as one tool within a broader human rights due diligence toolbox.

The entity states that: ‘For due diligence to effect positive impact on the ground, it should ideally result in every actor along the supply chain taking its share of responsibility and owning its due diligence. Due diligence would therefore become a real supply chain endeavour. By singling out contractual cascading, however, the current proposal would seem to encourage a top-down approach to due diligence and could be misinterpreted as incentivising the shifting of responsibility further up the supply chain, instead of fostering a more inclusive approach. We suggest that the CSDDD proposal make it clearer that contractual cascading and third-party verification systems are just tools within a broader HREDD toolbox. This means that, depending on the maturity of a company’s due diligence processes and programmes and/or that of their supplier base, or the nature of the risk in question, other complementary strategies could be equally deployed’.

The entity responds that it agrees to some extent to directors being required to establish consultation channels for engaging with stakeholders.

The entity responds that it agrees to some extent to directors being required to establish consultation channels for engaging with stakeholders (question 20a). It states that: 'Conducting due diligence also requires stakeholder engagement. Since a company may be linked to very many different stakeholders, it should be understood as a prioritised form of engagement with a selected pool of relevant stakeholders identified on the basis of the company’s own risk and impact analysis'.

There's a support for stakeholder engagement throuhgout due diligence.

The joint statement indicates that: 'It is important that the Directive integrates stakeholder engagement as a critical component of effective due diligence, recognises the role of trade unions and worker representatives, and promotes effective collaboration between companies, including in the context of industry and multistakeholder initiatives'.

There's a support for stakeholder engagement throuhgout due diligence.

The joint statement indicates that: 'It is important that the Directive integrates stakeholder engagement as a critical component of effective due diligence, recognises the role of trade unions and worker representatives, and promotes effective collaboration between companies, including in the context of industry and multistakeholder initiatives'.