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 does not explicity indicates that it supports the Directive and or its aims. It expresses some concerns.
The Company states that ‘The CSDD is a key part of the EU framework on sustainability, which is composed, inter alia, of CSRD, ESRS, EU Taxonomy and SFDR. Assirevi believes, however, that the CSDD could be better coordinated with such framework, in particular with reference to its scope, terminology and definitions’. It is also concerned about the lack of references to standars or frameworks: ‘Companies are required to structure their own ICS to exercise DD with regard to human rights and environmental impacts (art.4-14). Assirevi is concerned about the lack of any references to standards or frameworks for the purpose of designing and implementing an ICS. This aspect may also facilitate an uneven implementation in different EU States’.
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 considers that an EU legal framework is needed, advocating for a principles-based approach and agreeing with due diligence duty definition proposed by the consultation.
The entity agrees that an EU legal framework is needed (question 2): 'The EU legal framework should define general principles considering international leading practices and the nature of the entity involved'. It agrees with due diligence duty definition presented in question 14, although calls for clarification on the scope of the concept 'business relationship'. It advocates for a principles-based approach.
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 considers that micro-enterprises should be excluded and SMEs subject to lighter requirements. It advocates for a horizontal principles-based approach.
In response to question 16 the entity considers that micro-enterprises (less than 10 employees) should be excluded, and SMEs be subject to ligther requirements and reporting requirements. It advocates for a horizontal approach to due diligence duty (question 15).
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 seems in favour of enforcement mechanisms, although calls for more clarity
The Company states that 'As far as SAs are concerned, a more specific definition of the independence requirements that they should comply with would be appropriate (art.17-21). A better identification of the resources to be provided to SAs in order for them to effectively exercise their powers would also be helpful. Given the breadth of the SAs’ mandate (environment and human rights), it would be useful to outline their tasks in further detail, also through secondary level legislation. Assirevi welcomes the set-up of an EU network of SAs which can ensure a consistent application of rules'.
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 competent national authorities based on complaints (and/or reporting, where relevant) about non-compliance with setting up and implementing due diligence measures, etc. with effective sanctions (such as for example fines), with a mechanism of EU cooperation/ coordination.
The Company chooses theses pre-defined options in response to question 19a. It doesn't elaborate.
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 expresses concern that directors' duty article lacks clarity and may result in inconsistent implementation.
The Company states that 'The risk of creating a potential unlevel playing field among EU countries during the transposing phase may arise also with regardto the choice of introducing a directors’ duty of care provision (art.25) with rather indeterminate contents. This approach may not contribute to consistently address management towards specific sustainable objectives in the different EU States'.
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 considers that the European law could require corporate directors to establish procedures to ensure that possible adverse risks and impacts are identified, prevented and addressed.
In response to question 7, the entity states that 'We agree European law could define that the corporate directors should be required by law to set up procedures and measurable targets, as a principle. We believe that risk management guidelines and frameworks are useful tools for a company in addressing ESG risks in an integrated way, by considering them on the same level as operational or financial risks'. It agrees to some extent to question 6 on requiring by law that directors should manage risks in relation to stakeholders.
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 considers that grievance mechanisms as part of due diligence duty should be promoted at EU level, and considers as relevant employees and communities both at own operations and supply chain.
The entity considers that Complaint mechanisms should be promoted at EU level as part of due diligence (question 20c). It considers all stakeholder groups presented in question 5 as relevant, and response to question 20 reinforces that emplyees, suppliers, and associations repreesenting the needs of the local community could usefully be identified.
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 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.
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 broadly agrees with the definition of due diligence duty, although calls for clarification on the concept 'business relationship'. It advocates for a principles-based approach to due diligence duty.
In response to question 14, the entity states that 'Yes, we agree with the proposed definition. The only modification we would suggest, in order to better define the scope of the due diligence process, is to clarify explicitly whether the term “business relationships” includes other categories of relations in addition to subsidiaries, supplier and subcontractors (e.g. other business partners or third parties)'. It doesn't refer to remedy nor improvement over time. Finally, it doesn't take position on the scope of value chain, just calling for clarification on the scope of the term 'business relationship'.
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 asks for clarification on stakeholder identification and involvement, considering that current proposal can lead to an unlevel playing field.
The Company states that 'the relationship between the definition of “stakeholder” provided by the CSDD and the one set out in ESRS1, par. 44, should be clarified as well: indeed, it seems that the CSDD definition only includes the "affected stakeholders", but not the "users of sustainability reporting".' It also states that 'The involvement of stakeholders, which is a crucial topic within the CSDD, seems to be addressed in a fragmented way, without a consistent approach that would allow to identify the rights and duties of stakeholders into a set of defined outlines. This approach could also lead to an unlevel playing field among EU States'.
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 agrees 'to some extent' with this requirement, although it calls for soft law.
In response to question 6 on requiring (directors) to identify stakeholders and their interests, the entity agrees 'to some extent' and states that 'In our opinion, the EU legislation in this area should define general principles. A system of “soft law” and guidelines would be an appropriate solution to deal with the more detailed aspects of this subject'.
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 agrees to some extent to requiring directors to establish consultation channels for engaging with stakeholders as part of due diligence duty.
The entity agrees to some extent with question 20a. It states the following: 'We agree with the importance of integrating the stakeholders' requests in the definition of corporate strategies. Having the point of view of different categories of stakeholders can support the organization in having a picture as complete as possible of risks, opportunities, limitations, priority areas of action to address to ensure the long-term success of the organization'.
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 agrees 'to some extent' with this requirement, although it calls for soft law.
In response to question 6 on requiring directors to manage the risks in relation to stakeholders and their interests, the entity agrees 'to some extent' and states that 'In our opinion, the EU legislation in this area should define general principles. A system of “soft law” and guidelines would be an appropriate solution to deal with the more detailed aspects of this subject'.
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Member | Performance band |
|---|---|
| Deloitte EU Policy Centre | D- |
| Mazars | B- |
| PwC IL | C |
