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 is in favor of a legal framework for supply chain due diligence, and generally agrees with the due diligence duty defintion (which includes its own operations) and advocates for a horizontal approach.
The entity agrees that an EU legal framework is needed for supply chain due diligence (question 2). Although it considers that the due diligence duty requires clarification, it states that: 'we generally agree with this definition' (question 14), and advocates for a horizontal approach (question 15). No details were found regarding its position on continuous improvement or disclosure.Translated text, original in French
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 a horizontal approach covering all sectors and considers that in principle due diligence should apply to all companies; although, they would exclude micro-enterprises if there's a capacity limit.
The entity advocates for an horizontal approach to due diligence duty (question 15). It states that: 'The due diligence obligation will only be effective if it results in a horizontal approach that includes, regardless of the sector, fundamental human rights as defined by international conventions'. It states in response to question 16 that: 'In principle, due diligence should apply to all companies, if only to properly assess the overall impact of economic activity on a given territory, both socially and environmentally. However, the smallest SMEs could benefit from a threshold exemption, and others could be granted a lighter version of due diligence obligations, tailored to their limited resources in terms of staffing and financial capacity'. In this context, the entity would exclude micro-enterprises (mulitple choice response).*Translated text, original in French
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.
In relation to enforcement mechanisms, the entity advocates for: judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling due diligence duty; supervision by national authorities based on complaints about non-compliance with setting up; and implementing due diligence with effective sections, with a mechanism of EU coordination to ensure consistency.
In response to question 19a, that allows multiple choices, the entity selects both judicial enforcement with liability, compensation and supervision by national authorities based on complaints with a mechanism of EU coordination. It states that 'This mechanism will only be effective if it is accompanied by civil and/or criminal sanctions, and if it is monitored and coordinated at the European level'.Translated text, original in French
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 strongly agrees that directors should be legally required to establish procedures to identify, prevent, and address potential risks and impacts on stakeholders, and to manage risks related to stakeholders and their interests.
The entity strongly agrees with question 7, on requirements for directors to establish procedures to identify, prevent and address possible risks and impacts, and to manage risks in relation to stakeholders and their interests (question 6). Specifically, in its response to question 7, it adds: 'In our view, implementing internal procedures for the assessment, prevention, and management of risks is necessary to give substance to the obligation for board members to identify the company’s stakeholders. Preventive procedures should in particular include a requirement to provide training to board members, management, and employees most exposed to environmental and social issues. It should be noted, however, that any requirements set for the implementation of these procedures should be adapted according to the size of the company, in order to reflect its available resources (in terms of staff and budget to meet this obligation)'.Translated text, original in French
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 Company advocates for enforcement mechanisms that include liability and compensation, at the least, in case of harm caused by not fulfilling due diligence duty.
In its response to question 19a the Company chooses, among other enforcement mechanisms, judicial enforcement with liability in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence duty. Although the entity does not refer to any remedy in other contexts, it is not directly asked about it either.
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 strongly agrees that directors should be required to establish consultation channels for engaging with stakeholders as part of their due diligence duty. It considers all stakeholders listed in the consultation as relevant and advocates for promoting grievance mechanisms at the EU level as part of the due diligence process.
The entity strongly agrees that directors should be required to establish consultation channels for engaging with stakeholders as part of the due diligence duty (question 20a). It states that: 'We believe that an inclusive approach is always more effective in gaining the support of a majority of stakeholders and strengthening both the materiality and relevance of directors' due diligence'. In addition, it considers all stakeholders listed in the consultation as relevant (question 5) and advocates for promoting grievance mechanisms at the EU level as part of the due diligence process (question 20c).
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 chooses this option as an enforcement mechanism
The entity chooses this option as one of the enforcement mechanisms in response to question 19a. It points out that: 'This mechanism will only be effective if it is accompanied by civil and/or criminal sanctions, and if it is monitored and coordinated at the European level'. Translated text, original in French
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 agrees with a legal requirement to conduct due diligence and generally agrees with due diligence duty definition. It also is in favour of liabtility and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling due diligence duties.
The entity agrees with a legal requirement to conduct due diligence (question 2) and generally agrees with due diligence duty definition (question 14). It also is in favour of liabtility and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling due diligence duties (question 19a).
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 strongly agrees with the requirement of companies having to identify their stakeholders (including vulnerable individuals, groups and communities) and their interests.
The entity strongly agrees with the requirement of companies having to identify their stakeholders and their interests as per question 6 and states* that: 'Every company ... should identify its stakeholders in order to properly assess the related risks and opportunities within the scope of its activities. In our view, failing to take stakeholders into account when developing a strategy is contrary to the company’s corporate interest. For this reason, we believe that in companies exceeding a certain threshold, board members should be legally bound by the above-mentioned obligations, as they are indeed responsible for safeguarding the company in the short, medium, and long term'.
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 strongly agrees that directors should be required to establish consultation channels for engaging with stakeholders as part of the due diligence duty. It considers all stakeholders listed in the consultation as relevant.
The entity strongly agrees with question 20a. It states that 'We believe that an inclusive approach is always more effective in gaining the support of a majority of stakeholders and strengthening both the materiality and relevance of directors' due diligence'.Translated text, original in French
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 strongly agrees with the requirement of directors having to manage the risks of the company in relation to stakeholders and their interests.
The entity strongly agrees with the requirement of directors having to manage risks in relation to stakeholders and their interests as per question 6 and states that 'Every company ... should identify its stakeholders in order to properly assess the related risks and opportunities within the scope of its activities. In our view, failing to take stakeholders into account when developing a strategy is contrary to the company’s corporate interest. For this reason, we believe that in companies exceeding a certain threshold, board members should be legally bound by the above-mentioned obligations, as they are indeed responsible for safeguarding the company in the short, medium, and long term'.Translated text, original in French
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Member | Performance band |
|---|