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.
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents.
The entity supports the objectives of the (future) proposal, although raises questions
It states that '‘In general, the objectives of the long-awaited proposal for the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive are supported. The proposal complements other (European) legislative initiatives — mainly focused on transparency in sustainability and human rights, particularly the CSRD — by introducing direct and substantive obligations. In doing so, the proposal adds a still partly missing piece to the sustainability puzzle. The forthcoming CSRD leans heavily on market discipline and behavioural change in companies by requiring transparency toward stakeholders about their sustainability profile. With the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, this transparency requirement will be supplemented with substantive sustainability obligations. Although transparency and public accountability are by no means non-binding, the directive proposal further frames these obligations. The proposal has "teeth" designed to encourage company compliance through liability and the possibility of sanctions. At the same time, we do have questions about the unclear standards and the broad scope of the proposal. In particular, the provisions on liability and potential sanctions call for clear standardisation’.Translated text. Original in Dutch
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents.
The entity shows support for the proposed Directive and calls for higher harmonisation.
The entity states that: ‘Unfortunately, no agreement has yet been reached on the EU due diligence legislation (CSDDD). … This is not what Dutch businesses want. From the start of this process, we have voiced our support for EU-level due diligence rules, as a highly international issue like supply chain transparency can only be meaningfully addressed at the European level. We continue to hold this view — especially in light of several significant improvements made throughout the process. These include the principles of proportionality, risk-based approaches, and liability only for one’s own conduct — with an additional duty of effort to improve the conduct of others. These elements are essential for workable due diligence legislation. … Nonetheless, there remain aspects that go too far and impose obligations that may be too heavy for individual companies to bear. One of the biggest unresolved issues is the lack of armonisation. … Harmonisation must serve two purposes: there should be a minimum level of obligations that all must meet, and there should be agreements preventing Member States from adding extra national requirements on top of the European rules. This proposal does meet the goal of minimum harmonisation, but not the goal of preventing “gold-plating”’. Translated text. Original in Dutch
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 take a position on the need for a legal framework for supply chain due diligence, although it considers that a substantial additional step is needed to reinforce due diligence
In response to question 2, the entity states that 'We consider that a substantial additional step is needed to reinforce due diligence, but it should remain workable for business. Introducing an EU legal framework can be instrumental, provided it is carefully drafted and creates no unmanageable or disproportionate responsibilities for business, especially SMEs'.
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 SMEs should be excluded, with some exceptions, and these be subject to lighter requirements, including reporting, and receive support
The entity states (question 16) that 'The due diligence duty for SMEs should be limited to those SMEs with clear risk profiles and in those cases should be proportionate to their size and possibilities. Support and tools are essential'.
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 does not take a position among the options proposed by the consultation and proposes a mix of enforcers, without clear enforcement measures
In response to question 19a, the entity does not pick any of the proposed options, and instead explains the following: '‘There should be a strict separation between on the one hand the Responsible Business Conduct (RBC) elements of the due diligence duty and on the other hand possible civil or administrative liability via the existing legal system. Any sanctions for not respecting the procedural requirements of due diligence should be proportionate to a procedural imperfection. The judgement on possible procedural failures should be separate from a judgement on the material effects on the ground. New EU due diligence rules should be one element of a broader smart mix of instruments involving a.o.: existing EU, Member State and third country civil law; international human rights law; national or international societal dialogue and awareness campaigns; the system of the National Contact Points in OECD countries; ILO mechanisms; EU FTAs; national or international sectoral multistakeholders initiatives. Every instrument has its specific role to play and will have its own characteristics so that it can best play its role in, and add its value to, the system. There should be no blurring of the boundaries between the various instruments and their functions’.
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.
Although the expalantion to strong disagreement focuses on the requirement of setting targets, the entity, in its response to questions 6 on managing of the risks in relation to stakeholders, states the following: 'We do not believe additional EU Legislation on this topic is needed. Companies do not need detailed legislation to be made aware of the relevance for the company of identifying the company´s relevant stakeholders and include their interests in the strategy and risk management of the company. Directors’ duties cannot be put on a checklist formula as assumed by question 5. On the contrary, they need the flexibility to identify for the present and for the long term which stakeholder interests it should consider in accordance with its activity, structure, nature and size. Companies need to preserve their flexibility to determine not only the relevance of specific stakeholder groups to their business and how they interact with groups of different natures, but also the potential materiality of different stakeholder groups’ interests to the company over the short, medium and long-term'.
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.
Although the entity indicates that complaint mechanism should be promoted at EU level as part of due diligence, it is not clear whether it considers that this should be a (legal) requirement and whether it should include all stakeholders.
The Entity's response to question 20c regarding complaint mechanism refers to promotiion of this mechanism at EU level. However, it then explains that 'For the effectiveness of stakeholder consultation it is far more important to identify the right stakeholders, to have real dialogue with them and taking their interests into account in decision making processes, than prescribing the form of such a mechanism'. In response to question 20 on whether directors should establish consultation mechanisms for engaging with stakeholders as part of due diligence duty, it disagrees to some extent, arguing that, among other considerations, that 'New legal requirements risk destabilising or duplicating existing effective provisions. They could lead to either meaningless box-ticking exercises or to conflicting situations'.
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 does not take a clear position on liability, although it does not select 'enabling judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling due diligence obligations' as one of the possible options.
The entity states that ‘There should be a strict separation between on the one hand the Responsible Business Conduct (RBC) elements of the due diligence duty and on the other hand possible civil or administrative liability via the existing legal system. Any sanctions for not respecting the procedural requirements of due diligence should be proportionate to a procedural imperfection. The judgement on possible procedural failures should be separate from a judgement on the material effects on the ground. New EU due diligence rules should be one element of a broader smart mix of instruments …’.
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.
Although it is not clear whether the entity is in favour of a (legal) requirement to implement due diligence, it considers that a significant step is needed to reinforce it. It indicates that it agrees with the definition of due diligence duty under certain conditions, including limiting it to the supply chain rather than the entire value chain.
Although it is not clear whether the entity supports a legal requirement to implement due diligence, it considers it necessary to reinforce due diligence (question 2). Regarding whether it agrees with the proposed definition of due diligence duty, it states that it can agree under a number of conditions, including limiting the scope to the supply chain rather than the entire value chain. It does not refer to remedy or improvement.
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.
Although its official response to question 6 is not taking position in relation to requiring directors to identify stakeholders and their interests, it considers that there's no need of legislation on this topic.
In response to question 5, on the relevance of different stakeholdes, the entity does not take an official position, and instead states that '‘it is impossible in practice to simultaneously take into account the interests of all groups. … there will be a trade-off, especially when interests are contradictory. The different European Member States have adopted different workable frameworks on how to deal with this. It is unnecessary and would lead to major cost and insecurities to replace all of these with a new European Framework’. In response to question 6, it claims that ‘We do not believe additional EU Legislation on this topic is needed. Companies do not need detailed legislation to be made aware of the relevance for the company of identifying the company´s relevant stakeholders and include their interests in the strategy and risk management of the company. … Companies need to preserve their flexibility to determine not only the relevance of specific stakeholder groups to their business and how they interact with groups of different natures, but also the potential materiality of different stakeholder groups’ interests to the company over 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 disagrees to some extent with this requirement, which is explicitly and directly asked in the consultation.
In response to question 20a, the entity states that 'Dialogue with employee representatives and other relevant stakeholders is important in the normal functioning of companies. Companies themselves are best placed to determine the relevant stakeholders depending on their specificities and the type of measures/mechanisms to inform, consult and engage with, and should have the flexibility to do so. Companies already do this … New legal requirements risk destabilising or duplicating existing effective provisions. They could lead to either meaningless box-ticking exercises or to conflicting situations (between different stakeholders’ interests) that would reduce the efficiency of decision-making processes in companies and harm their competitiveness’. The entity does not explicitly refer to directors' duties in its response to this question, although it has positioned itself against such duties in response to other questions
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.
Although the entity's official response to question 6 is that it does not take a position on whether directors should be required to manage risks for the company in relation to stakeholders' interests, it considers that there is no need for legislation on this matter.
In response to question 6, the entity states that ‘We do not believe additional EU Legislation on this topic is needed. Companies do not need detailed legislation to be made aware of the relevance for the company of identifying the company´s relevant stakeholders and include their interests in the strategy and risk management of the company. Directors’ duties cannot be put on a checklist formula as assumed by question 5. On the contrary, they need the flexibility to identify for the present and for the long term which stakeholder interests it should consider in accordance with its activity, structure, nature and size. Companies need to preserve their flexibility to determine not only the relevance of specific stakeholder groups to their business and how they interact with groups of different natures, but also the potential materiality of different stakeholder groups’ interests to the company over the short, medium and long-term’.
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Member | Performance band |
|---|---|
| Siemens Energy | F |
