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 is against making human rights due diligence a legal requirement.
In response to question 2, it states that: 'No, it should be enough to focus on asking companies to follow existing guidelines and standards'. It then elaborates: 'ANIA believes that a general EU legal framework for supply chain due diligence might not be the best solution as it may negatively affect the development of common standards for corporate due diligence, which are already emerging on a voluntary basis and that may better take into account the sectoral specificities'.
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 the entity supports the objectives of the EU, it calls for a combination of principles set in had law with an extensive soft law regime
The entity states that 'fully support the aim of promoting sustainable governance which represents a key issue for the sustainable transformation of the European economy. Interventions should however focus on limited principles set in hard law (with a principle-based approach) to be combined with an extensive soft law regime, thus allowing each company to exploit its sustainable potential in the most appropriate and effective way. ANIA recognises that the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDD) proposal appears to be going in the right direction, even though there are some points of attention and some issues that should be better specified and calibrated'.
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 Company is in favour of a cross-sectorial (horizontal) approach and in principle is not in favour of exclusions.
The Company is in favour of a cross-sector, principles-based approach (question 15) and, in relation to reducing burden of smaller companies (question 16), it states that: 'SMEs cannot be excluded, especially if operating in sectors at risk. Setting lighter minimum requirements (with exclusions based on specific thresholds) could be an adequate solution for SMEs.'
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 is in favour of '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)'.
The entity is in favour of '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)'.
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 ensuring enforcement systems that respect the specificities of national legislation in terms of civil liability and directors' duty of care.
The entity expects that there's a: 'clear, proportionate and achievable enforcement system, which fully respects the specificities of the national legislations both in terms of civil liability and in terms of "directors' duty of care", avoiding to impose – even indirectly - on the Member States changes to the national systems. It also expects a supervision system based on national authorities, avoiding the establishment of an additional layer of supervision at the European level, with the risk of increasing only the system’s complexity, while there are already existing European supervisory authorities to promote coherence and cooperation'.
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 strongly disagrees that directors should be required by law to establish procedures to ensure that possible risks and adverse impacts on stakeholders are identified, prevented and addressed.
It states in response to question 7 that: 'It is key that the legal framework ensures that the management are encouraged to account for all types of risks but they should be entrusted with sufficient flexibility to identify and address these risks, in line with the characteristics of their businesses and relevant applicable (European and national) legislations and guidelines'. It then refers to the Italian sectorial legislation: 'IVASS adopted a new regulation introducing the following provision: “The safeguards relating to the corporate governance system cover all types of corporate risk, including the environmental and social ones, generated or suffered, also according to a prospective view and in consideration of the overall solvency needs of the company. Liability is left to the corporate bodies, each according to their respective competences. The organization of corporate activities, as well as the tasks and liabilities of the corporate bodies and functions, must be clearly defined.”
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 does not respond to the question of whether grievance mechanisms as part of due diligence should be promoted at the EU level, but strongly disagrees with requiring directors to establish consultation channels for engaging with stakeholders as part of due diligence duty.
The Company does not respond to the question of whether grievance mechanisms as part of due diligence should be promoted at the EU level (question 20c), but strongly disagrees with requiring directors to establish consultation channels for engaging with stakeholders as part of due diligence duty. In relation to this second part, it states that: 'There is no "one size fits all" solution. All companies have different stakeholders and each one will need to assess which stakeholders will need to be represented in engagement/outreach strategies and how.'
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 enforcement mechanism.
Question 19a gives multiple options for companies to pick an enforcement mechanism, 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 entity considers that this shouldn't be a legal requirement. It does not seem to agree with due diligence definition, as its explanation focuses on how it should be.
As per question 2, the entity does not consider that due diligence should be a legal requirement. In relation to due diligence duty definition (question 14), it does not seem to agree with the definition, although part of its comment is contained in the definition adding that 'the due diligence is, and should remain, a risk-based, proportionate and context specific duty, to be better addressed by non-binding guidelines, that should promote best practices'.
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 advocates for a limited hard law framework, following a principle-based approach and complemented by soft law, which suggests opposition to a detailed, binding due diligence duty process. It also considers that the value chain, at least for its sector (insurance), should be limited to direct business partners only.
The entity states that it: 'fully supports the aim of promoting sustainable governance which represents a key issue for the sustainable transformation of the European economy. Interventions should however focus on limited principles set in hard law (with a principle-based approach) to be combined with an extensive soft law regime, thus allowing each company to exploit its sustainable potential in the most appropriate and effective way'. It adds that should be provided 'a more specific definition of the value chain, that for the insurance sector should be limited to the direct business partners only'.
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 agrees to some extent that the requirement for corporate directors to identify company's stakeholders and their interests. It considers that all stakeholders presented in the consultation are relevant.
The entity agrees 'to some extent' to the requirement for corporate directors to identify company's stakeholders and their interests. It states the following: 'Identification of the company’s stakeholders and their interests is a natural and essential component of directors’ duty. Directors are expected to consider the interests of stakeholders as well as all material risks to the company. There are already requirements in this respect in sectoral regulation, both at European (Solvency II) and national level'. It considers that all stakeholders presented in the consultation are relevant (question 5).
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 Company strongly disagrees with this requirement, which is directly asked in the consultation
It strongly disagrees to question 20a, arguing that: 'There is no "one size fits all" solution. All companies have different stakeholders and each one will need to assess which stakeholders will need to be represented in engagement/ outreach strategies and how'.
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' to requiring directors to manage risk in relation to stakeholders and their interests, including in the long term.
The Company agrees to some extent to this question (6a). Although it provides an explanation, it refers to stakeholder identification.
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Member | Performance band |
|---|---|
| Allianz SE | E |
| Aviva Plc | C+ |
| Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. | E+ |
| UNIQA Insurance Group | B- |
| Unipol Gruppo | E+ |