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 states it that it is not supportive towards the EU-level legislation, considering that it should be enough to focus on asking companies to follow existing guidelines and standards.
The response to question 2 on whether an EU legal framework should be developed states that it should be enough to focus on asking companies to follow existing guidelines and standards. The entity also states that '‘There is already existing relevant legislation and instruments focused on human rights and environmental issues at the international level, EU -level and at a national level. … The problem with due diligence duties in global supply chains is that even though you would do your best in assuring everything is done according to rules and regulations, it is impossible to guarantee this in practice. … It is also almost impossible to scrutiny and verify that matters are taken care of in the global supply chain, even if the utmost care and diligence is applied. … we think that the best way forward with a global problem is through a globally applicable solution … We already have many sets of rules and guidelines (UN and OECD for example) that could be further aligned to be used as global binding rules on protecting human rights … We are not supportive towards the of EU -level legislation. It is also problematic, how unclear the current situation with the preparations of the EU -legislation is. There are many parallel and intertwined proposals on sustainability and human rights issues and it is impossible to grasp how the different legal proposals (such as update on NFRD, possible new sustainability standards within IASB, this consultation, taxonomy regulation, etc.) are going to affect companies. … These matters need to be handled through countries and international conventions where the problems happen. These matters cannot be pushed to be on European companies’ responsibility'.
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 show support for the directive proposal and remarks on the challenges that it has identified.
It states that: ‘The objectives of the proposed directive are important and supportable, and we feel that the development of these corporate sustainability issues can only take place effectively at EU level, when global alignment cannot yet be achieved. … The Directive is built upon existing international standards and best practices. However, the challenging task of transforming best practices to good legal norms has not been entirely successful. The internal cohesion and key concepts of the proposal remain unclear and incomplete, making it challenging for companies to understand what is required of them. Serious attention must be paid to this ambiguity in the proposal as a whole. The objectives of effective and appropriate legislation can only be achieved through realistic and clear objectives and liabilities. EU-legislation must be predictable and comprehensible, and the formation of obligations on companies must be clearly obtained from the contents of the directive. The directive proposal contains particularly serious challenges with regard to incomplete and inaccurate definitions and scope of responsibilities. The key areas of concern for us are the definition and scope of the civil liability, the proposals regarding the companies liability to manage its business relations and the directors’ duty of care’. In it's final remarks it states that: 'The problems of the directive do not go back to one or two, or even a few, of the problems raised in this memorandum, but are wide-ranging and massive. The directive is a list of various vaguely worded objectives, the interactions of which have not been analyzed at all. The more you analyze the obligations contained in the directive in relation to the whole, the more impossible it seems to be to applied in practice'.
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 opposes the EU legal framework and does not take a position on any specific approach. It believes that all SMEs should be excluded.
In response to question 16 the entity considers that all SMEs should be excluded. It states that: 'It is also to be pointed out that even without specific legal requirements, SMEs will still be affected through demands from major customers, which are subject to mandatory due diligence, and their standard will thus be raised by market forces. EU regulation should not cover micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. Alternatively, mandatory due diligence must be adapted to the needs and capacities of SMEs'. Also, the entity does not respond to any specific approach as presented in question 15 (cross sector, vertical), and refers to its explanation to question 2 instead. In its response to question 2, it states that: 'We are not supportive towards the of EU -level legislation. It is also problematic, how unclear the current situation with the preparations of the EU -legislation is. There are many parallel and intertwined proposals on sustainability and human rights issues and it is impossible to grasp how the different legal proposals (such as update on NFRD, possible new sustainability standards within IASB, this consultation, taxonomy regulation, etc.) are going to affect companies'.
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 considers that at phase 2 consultation it is: 'too early to speculate on this subject'.
In its response to question 19a on enforcement mechanisms, the entity states that: 'It is too early to speculate on this subject since we do not have any information on the concrete content of the possible regulations with this matter. Once the proposal is given, then we can align our views on enforcement mechanisms and sanctions. One important point is also the scope of the due diligence obligation – does it affect the 1st tier only or does it go further than that. The sanctions need to be balanced towards the company in the light of the location of the breach and company’s’ possibility to affect that breach. This is one of the most problematic aspects of the due diligence duty and it needs to be properly analysed later on, when the actual proposal has been given'.
Including in the duties of directors and company law obligations to avoid human rights impacts or “harms”.
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents.
The statement opposes EU-level regulation of directors' duties, including article 26, preferring national frameworks
The statement indicates that '‘Some duties in the proposal go beyond the objective of regulating companies’ due diligence obligations. This is especially the case for the parts related to corporate governance (art. 15 (3), 25 & 26), … this part of the impact assessment was rejected twice by the European Commission's Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB). RSB called for better explanation and evidence of the added value of regulating directors’ duties on top of due diligence requirements, considering that the due diligence obligation already requires risk management and engagement with stakeholders’ interests’ … The existing frameworks for corporate governance are based on unique legal and economic traditions throughout the Member States and are not suited for regulation at EU-level'.
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 disagrees with a legal requirement for directors to establish procedures to ensure risks and impacts on stakeholders are identified, prevented and addressed, and to manage risks for the Company in relation to stakeholders and their interests.
In its reponse to question 7 on whether directors should be legally required to establish procedures to ensure risks and impacts on stakeholders are identified, prevented and addressed, it states that ' there is nothing wrong or missing from the decision making processes and corporate governance measures that would require this type of processes to be created in the legislation. It would also be extremely difficult to create such methodology, since one cannot create processes that would be clear and applicable to all companies. Each company has the best information and possibilities to form and develop their individual processes and targets and measurement systems for these matters'. In relation to managing risks for the Company in relation to stakeholders, it states: 'this type of proposal on detailed legislation in identifying the company's relevant stakeholders and include their interests in the risk management of the company shows only the lack of knowledge and rather worrying distrust on how companies function and handle these matters'.
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: 'it is not appropriate or needed to legislate on directors' duties'.
It states that: 'The proposal for a directive seeks to clarify the duty of care of a company's management so that the obligation to act in the interests of the company in the future would explicitly cover sustainability issues, such as the impact on human rights … In addition, the company's management would be required by law to take into account relevant information received from stakeholders. The proposal to clarify the duty of care as such is contrary to the current company law regime. The responsibilities of the company's management cannot be clarified by referring to certain specific matters. … The general duty of care can be understood already containing also these matters (sustainability issues, human rights, etc.) The provision could not be transposed into national law without a complete redefinition of the whole concept and content of the established duty of care. The proposal is vague and unnecessary to achieve the general objectives of the Directive and is practically completely separate from the rest of the Directive. The details of corporate governance and obligations should not be laid down at EU level’.
Require companies to exert leverage on and/or provide support to their counterparties in the remediation of human rights impacts that are linked to company activities through their business relationships (e.g their value chains).
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 objects to the requirement to terminate business relationships where there is not enough leverage over a business relationship.
The entity states: 'The proposal also contains an obligation to terminate the business relationship in certain situations if the company has not been able to take the necessary steps to reduce or eliminate the serious adverse effects caused by the contractor. This is of course one option how companies currently operate in certain situations, and business relationships are terminated if there is no other alternative. However, this decision must remain as company's own decision. When the obligation to terminate business relationships is incorporated in the Directive as a legal norm, companies may feel compelled to terminate contracts to avoid legal risk, even if they would not consider it necessary or being the best option to best respect human rights and protect the environment. This fear would be caused and exaggerated by the legal unclarity with regards to the broad value chain definition, excessive and unpredictable liability and notification mechanism, and Member States' sanction mechanisms. The fundamental principles of honoring existing contracts, pact sund servanda, need to be respected and safeguarded.'
Require companies to provide grievance mechanisms for all stakeholders including those in the value chain.
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents.
The statement expresses concern about vagueness and legal uncertainty in the proposed grievance mechanisms.
The statement points out that '‘For instance, introducing complaint rights for a wide and vaguely defined group of stakeholders in combination with equally vaguely defined directors’ duties, creates legal uncertainty about the liability of the management … Legal uncertainty is created in particular … as regards complaints procedures (art. 9)’
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 it depends on the company, the situation and other factors as to what kind of mechanism is needed, but this should not be a requirement.
In relation to whether grievance mechanisms (and other mechanisms) should be promoted at the EU level as part of due diligence, the entity states that: ' it depends on the company and situation and other things what kind of mechanism is needed or regarded as most sufficient to engage stakeholder engagement. These mechanisms do not need to be promoted at the EU level'. In response to question 20a, on whether there should be a requirement (for directors) to establish consultation channels for engaging with stakeholders on due diligence duty, it states that: 'companies are already taking care of stakeholders in various processes and as a part of their strategies and there is absolutely no need or relevance to legislate on these matters at the EU -level'.
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 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 company did not select this as one of its preferred measures.
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 removing the proposal's article on civil liability.
The entity states that: 'We strongly advocate that the article on civil liability as such should be deleted from the directive. We believe the administrative sanctions will be sufficient to ensure the enforcement of the Directive. Should the provisions for civil liability be retained in the Directive, these concerns should be resolved to make the provisions appropriate, clear, proportionate, and achievable. One way would be to restrict civil liability to Tier 1 business partners, and then better align the wider DD requirements with the UNGPs and OECD guidelines, but with less ambiguity and clearly setting out the obligations imposed on companies, making due diligence risk-based and results-driven, rather than basing it on means and contracts'.
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.
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents.
The entity opposes applying due diligence across the full value chain; supports limiting scope to first-tier suppliers only.
The joint statement indicates that '‘The CSDDD proposal includes obligations related to due diligence which are too wide ranging and difficult to understand and apply. This needs to be clarified. Firstly, the requirements should be limited to the companies' suppliers in the first link. It is only in this stage that companies can practically assert influence. Further, the terms “established business relationship” and "value chain" need to be clarified. These definitions are very broad and unclear. As regards "value chain", we believe the term should be replaced by "supply chain", and it should be further clarified how far the responsibility extends’.
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 opposes to a legal framework to conduct due diligence, disagrees with supply chain definition and calls for clarification of parts of the definition of due diligence duty.
In relation to due diligence approach (question 15), the entity refers to its response to question 2, where it opposes to this legal framework. In relation to due diligence duty definition provided by the consultation it asks for clarification of some terms such as "adequate processes" and "reasonable efforts", and for definition of 'all impacts that a company would be accountable for'. It disagrees with supply chain definition: 'we disagree with this definition which is too broad. What are “suppliers” in this more specifically? Both upstream and/or downstream? Does it include ALL levels/tiers of suppliers throughout the value chain or (as we prefer) just tier 1 suppliers where the company has at least some possibility to impact/have contractual agreement? It is impossible in practice to manage all the risks related to a company’s “business relationships” along the whole supply chain. Companies’ efforts should be limited to first-tier suppliers/subcontractors if this proposal advances. Companies should not be held liable for entities they cannot influence or control’.
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 objects to the coverage of the full value chain, indicating it would lead to issues around liability.
The entity states that: 'The directive proposal contains particularly serious challenges with regard to incomplete and inaccurate definitions and scope of responsibilities. The key areas of concern for us are the definition and scope of the civil liability, the proposals regarding the companies liability to manage its business relations ... the ability of companies to control and operate at the level of the entire value chain with this concept of ”stakeholder” is practically impossible.'
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 disagrees with a legal requirement of stakeholder identification.
The entity strongly disagrees with question 6 about a requirement (for directors) of stakeholder identification. It states that: 'this type of proposal on detailed legislation in identifying the company´s relevant stakeholders and include their interests in the risk management of the company shows only the lack of knowledge and rather worrying distrust on how companies function and handle these matters'.
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.
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents.
The joint statement argues that national frameworks already ensure stakeholder consideration; opposes EU-level imposition
The joint statement evolves around frontal opposition to include directors duties. It states that 'Furthermore, it needs to be underlined that in these existing national combinations of legislation and corporate governance frameworks, directors - and management – are already obliged to consider conse quences for the company as well as for other stakeholders in decision making. These decisions are complex and include by nature prioritising among both risks and opportunities, at all times'.
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 disagrees with a requirement for directors to establish consultation channels for engaging with stakeholders on due diligence.
It strongly disagrees with question 20a, and states: 'Consultation of relevant stakeholders is an important part of companies’ current due diligence processes but it should be up to the company itself to define which stakeholders are relevant and what is the most appropriate way to ensure such consultation and inclusion. This is a matter that needs to be decided by companies themselves. Companies already have many different ways for dialogue between stakeholders and these ways are always developed further. … To sum up: companies are already taking care of stakeholders in various processes and as a part of their strategies and there is absolutely no need or relevance to legislate on these matters at the EU -level'. In relation to directors' duties, responding to question 1, the entity states that 'One of the biggest problems with the study and this consultation is the proposal and idea to change the entire legal system of corporate governance The shift from shareholder to stakeholder oriented legal framework is just not possible in practice. It would have severe negative consequences for the entire decision-making processes and the allocation of duties and responsibilities within a company'.
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.
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents.
The statement opposes EU-level regulation of directors' duties, including article 25, preferring national frameworks
The statement indicates that '‘Some duties in the proposal go beyond the objective of regulating companies’ due diligence obligations. This is especially the case for the parts related to corporate governance (art. 15 (3), 25 & 26), … this part of the impact assessment was rejected twice by the European Commission's Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB). RSB called for better explanation and evidence of the added value of regulating directors’ duties on top of due diligence requirements, considering that the due diligence obligation already requires risk management and engagement with stakeholders’ interests’ … The existing frameworks for corporate governance are based on unique legal and economic traditions throughout the Member States and are not suited for regulation at EU-level'.
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 disagrees with a legal requirement for directors to manage the risks of the company in relation to stakeholders and their interests.
The entity strongly disagrees with question 6 about a requirement (for directors) of management of the risks for the company in relation to stakeholders and their interests. It states that 'Directors’ duties cannot be listed through these types of checklists as suggested by questions 5 and 6 but must be based on broad principles that provide flexibility for the company because the running of businesses requires flexibility and a good margin of judgment and balancing. There are no such shortcomings or problems with current company decision making processes or directors’ duties that would require EU-level intervention as such. National legislation, market practice and strong self regulation -guidance assure that these matters are well taken into account. Moreover, this type of proposal on detailed legislation in identifying the company´s relevant stakeholders and include their interests in the risk management of the company shows only the lack of knowledge and rather worrying distrust on how companies function and handle these matters'.
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: 'it is not appropriate or needed to legislate on directors' duties'.
It states that: 'The proposal for a directive seeks to clarify the duty of care of a company's management so that the obligation to act in the interests of the company in the future would explicitly cover sustainability issues, such as the impact on human rights … In addition, the company's management would be required by law to take into account relevant information received from stakeholders. The proposal to clarify the duty of care as such is contrary to the current company law regime. The responsibilities of the company's management cannot be clarified by referring to certain specific matters. … The general duty of care can be understood already containing also these matters (sustainability issues, human rights, etc.) The provision could not be transposed into national law without a complete redefinition of the whole concept and content of the established duty of care. The proposal is vague and unnecessary to achieve the general objectives of the Directive and is practically completely separate from the rest of the Directive. The details of corporate governance and obligations should not be laid down at EU level’.
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Member | Performance band |
|---|
