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 requests the directive to be stopped
The entity states that 'Dr Uwe Mazura, Managing Director of textil+mode: "Many companies that are already struggling to survive are being burdened with new bureaucratic regulations and made liable for actions in parts of the value chain that are beyond their control. Unlike in the first drafts, the textile and fashion industry is no longer branded as a high-risk sector; instead, Parliament is now placing the entire industry under general suspicion." If the Commission, Council and Parliament do not stop this new bureaucratic monster in the trilogue negotiations that are now beginning, many companies will adapt their purchasing policy to the new requirements and try to reduce their liability risk by importing from fewer and larger suppliers from fewer and larger countries. ... The current Swedish Council Presidency has recognised this dynamic and has finally provided a long overdue impetus with a focus on competitiveness. This approach must be pursued with vigour. textil+mode Managing Director Uwe Mazura: "Europe's companies finally need better framework conditions, more trust and less bureaucracy in order to secure employment and prosperity in the long term. The EU Supply Chain Directive in the form now adopted by the EU Parliament is detrimental to this goal."'Translated text, original language German
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents.
The entity demands stopping the proposed legislation
'In a joint letter to the German government, the EU Council Presidency and other European decision-makers, the business organisations BGA, Gesamtmetall, Mittelstandsverbund - ZGV, Stiftung Familienunternehmen und Politik, Gesamtverband textil+mode, VCI, VDMA and ZVEI call for the European Supply Chain Directive to be stopped. ... An EU supply chain directive, as now planned, would result in a new dimension of bureaucratic overload and legal uncertainty," warn the associations. The directive would make foreign trade more difficult and would be to the detriment of European jobs and value creation. ... Yet respecting human rights around the globe is a goal that companies are clearly committed to. "The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights are decisive for European companies. They already base their global supply relationships on them and communicate European standards to the world via their international partners," emphasise the associations. However, placing European companies under general suspicion would prove to be counterproductive in practice, ‘the loss of economic substance in the EU would be further exacerbated by such a supply chain directive’, they say. ‘Instead of taking the route via the directive, let us make a new start together and consider in dialogue with each other how we can enforce our standards for the protection of human rights and the environment even more effectively worldwide via global supply chains,’ the business organisations conclude.'Translated text, original language German
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents.
The entity opposed the directive
The entity states 'The state monitoring system adopted today, with its system-unrelated strict liability in the supply chain, is an ideologically motivated construct that completely ignores the reality and possibilities of the SMEs affected. The Supply Chain Directive goes far beyond what is necessary. It creates further disproportionate complexity for many SMEs in the textile and fashion industry at a time when a bureaucratisation offensive would actually be the order of the day. ... What was decided today in the trilogue in Brussels is characterised by a striking ignorance of the reality of today's textile value chains and the positive contribution of the European textile and fashion industry. This new package of burdens helps no one."In the view of the German Textile+Fashion Confederation, the EU Supply Chain Directive is also poorly crafted. If the legislator wants to stipulate due diligence obligations and hold companies liable for them, it must at least set out legally certain requirements. What has now been decided is nothing more than an incentive for the affected domestic companies to reduce their risk by concentrating on fewer suppliers from fewer supplier countries. ... We will continue to uphold this culture of ethics in the future, without the need for new legal regulations.'Translated text, original language German
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents.
The entity opposes the directive
The statement indicates that the undersigned entities while supporting the overall goal reject the current draft 'due to major technical flaws'. It further states 'An important reason for the negative attitude is the lack of harmonisation in key parts of the directive. The fundamental goal of legislation for sustainability must be maximum harmonisation. This is not achieved with the present directive. Without sufficiently binding harmonisation through a directive, there is a risk of fragmentation of the EU internal market, as the same laws and competitive conditions for companies do not apply within Europe. In addition, this leaves the member states a lot of room for interpretation or additional regulations (‘goldplating’). At the very least, a so-called internal market clause is needed here. Otherwise, European companies will be confronted with 27 different individual implementations.'Translated text, original language German
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents.
The entity opposes the directive
The entity states that 'All attempts to make cosmetic changes to the EU Supply Chain Directive in order to gain a majority only show one thing: the draft directive was wrongly buttoned up from the outset, as Uwe Mazura, Managing Director of the German Textile and Fashion Industry Association, emphasises ... All the twisting and turning therefore doesn't help: according to the German Textile+Fashion Confederation, the plans for an EU supply chain directive are at an impasse and must be scrapped.'Translated text, original language German
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 indicates support for the goals of the directive but indicates it considers the draft proposal unsuitable and not usable in practice
The entity states 'Medium-sized companies in the German textile and fashion industry are not only committed to fair social and environmental standards along their supply chains. They are already making great efforts to continuously expand knowledge and control along their supply chains. ... We will continue to uphold this culture of ethics in the future without the need for new legal regulations. ... In the current situation, it is important to avoid additional burdens on the economy through new regulatory requirements that are not absolutely necessary. ... If the legislator still wants to take action, it makes more sense to regulate the issue EU-wide rather than at national level. However, a pluri- or multilateral approach would have been more effective.The state monitoring system now proposed by the EU Commission with its non-systemic liability for endangering and ensuring compliance in the supply chain is a largely theoretical construct that completely ignores the possibilities of the SMEs covered by the planned directive. While the latest draft directive abandons the even more extreme positions of the original parliamentary proposal (Wolters Report) in some areas, it still goes far beyond what is necessary – and even beyond the German LKSG. It creates further disproportionate complexity for many medium-sized companies in the textile and fashion industry at a time when a debureaucratization initiative would actually be the order of the day.'Translated text, original language German
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 indicates that a mandatory HRDD is not necessary as voluntary guidelines are sufficient. It does however indicate a preference for an EU legislation over individual initiatives of the member states.
The entity states that it should be enough to focus on asking companies to follow existing guidelines and standards. It argues that such a legislation would posed a high burden for companies, in particular SEMs. It further states that the main responsibility to protect human rights lies with governments, whereas companies should not be expected to take on this role. It also points to existing multi-stakeholder and industry initiatives that should be strengthened over a reliance on mandatory measures that will turn HRDD into a compliance exercise.Original text in German
Requiring Human rights due diligence of all companies, regardless of sector and size, while still reflecting their individual circumstances.
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents.
The entity opposes the application of the directive to SMEs
The entity states that 'Medium-sized companies in the German textile and fashion industry are not only committed to fair social and environmental standards along their supply chain; they are already making great efforts to constantly expand knowledge and control along their supply chains. However, the European Commission's proposal for a supply chain directive, which now requires companies to regulate everything and be liable for it, misses the mark. The state monitoring system proposed today, with its system-unrelated strict liability in the supply chain, is a theoretical construct that completely ignores the possibilities of medium-sized companies. The Commission's proposal creates new disproportionate requirements for many small and medium-sized companies in the textile and fashion industry, where a bureaucratisation offensive should actually be the order of the day.'Translated, original language German.
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 suggests limiting the scope of the directive to companies of more than 5000 employees
The entity states that 'The threshold for the affected company size for textiles and fashion must be subject to the rules applicable to all other sectors. The values proposed by the EU Commission must be significantly increased.o The scope of application (Article 2 of the draft directive) includes too many companies and overburdens SMEs. Excluding small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is correct, but does not go far enough here. Companies with 500 or even 250 employees cannot be required to monitor their entire value chain and comply with a multitude of regulations and procedures. Given the actual circumstances, it is precisely these companies that are unable to exert the necessary influence on third parties in distant regions of the world to comply with the directive.In fact, many companies initially excluded from the scope of application will also be indirectly affected by the directive, as SMEs are part of the value chains of larger companies.Given the overall situation in Europe, it would be better to define a threshold of 5,000 employees – similar to the French "Loi de Vigilance" – because only companies of this size are capable of meeting requirements in this area.' The entity further appears to critizise the inclusion of the financial sector.Text translated, original language German.
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 suggests limiting the scope of the directive to large undertakings of more than 5.000 employees.
It states „All SMEs should be excluded“. It further elaborates "The vast majority of the 1,400 companies in the German textile and fashion industry are SMEs. We would like to trust the European Commission's promise to pay special attention to the special situation of small and medium-sized enterprises. The "Think Small First" principle must also be applied within the framework of the EU Supply Chain Directive currently being discussed. The influence and control options of small and medium-sized enterprises over their foreign business partners on site are extremely limited given the lower order volumes and other economic significance. Any regulations regarding corporate due diligence obligations in supply chains must maintain a balance. Therefore, companies should only be required to meet what they can realistically deliver. The following substantive requirements must therefore be taken into account: Only larger companies may be included, with the threshold being at least in the mid-four-digit employee range (5,000 to 10,000). The French regulation can serve as a guideline here."Cited text translated, original language German
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 indicate support or opposition regarding an enforcement mechanism. However, it highlights what it considers requirements for a sanctions regime.
The statement indicates that 'Sanctions must be defined in a legally secure manner. Their design must be proportionate, predictable, and effective.If companies violate the national provisions implementing this Directive, turnover-based sanctions should be imposed according to Article 20. However, it is important here that sanctions should not only be primarily deterrent and therefore effective, but that the principle of proportionality is also observed. It can all too easily happen that small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, are driven into insolvency by excessively harsh sanctions. This becomes even more evident when a sanction can be imposed when a third party was actually responsible. The required "exclusion from public support measures" must also be clearly and unambiguously defined. If this includes exclusion from the award of public contracts, it must be clear that such a sanction – even if only temporary – can result in the loss of a majority of contracts in many sectors and thus also in insolvency.'Translated text, original language German
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 introduction of a mandatory HRDD legislation and expresses that it does not think such a legislation should be enforced.
It states that:“None of these mechanisms would be suitable for making a positive contribution.” It considers the envisioned duties and a liability for them to be incompatible with the German legal system. “Civil law in Germany and other countries only allows liability for the conduct of business partners and other third parties in very narrowly exceptional cases. This also applies, and in particular, to possible human rights violations. In tort law, for example, the premise is that each person is fundamentally responsible only for their own conduct, but not for that of others. Instead, companies can and should trust that the other legal participants will also act lawfully and with due care. Expanding human rights due diligence obligations to a kind of liability for risk or security for the supply chain is fundamentally alien to the system and raises numerous questions.” The entity considers that such a legal duty would reverse the roles of state governments and companies with regards to human rights.
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 opposes introducing directors duties in the directive
The entity states that 'The proposed obligations for company directors must ensure that they do not lead to a duplication of requirements and an influence on national company law. ... An additional direct regulation not only represents duplication, but also carries the risk of impairing the flexibility and freedom of choice of those affected.'Translated text, original language German
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 such a duty for directors
It indicates that it strongly disagrees with the suggests areas of legal duties for directors. It states that 'The question suggests that company management focuses primarily on the short-term financial interests of shareholders. This underlying assumption does not hold true in practice: Many companies in the textile and fashion industry are structured as partnerships under company law, not as corporations. Smaller companies in particular still have numerous personally liable partners. The success story of medium-sized businesses in Germany and other European countries since the middle of the last century would not have been possible if corporate performance had focused solely on short-term financial interests. Social and societal responsibility are at the core of the brand of the "German Mittelstand," which has become proverbial beyond the country's borders. Medium-sized companies are often family-run, often for several generations. It is very important to management to hand over a solid, sustainable business to their children and grandchildren. You vouch for the company's reputation and its diligence with your name. If the Commission were to base future EU supply chain legislation on the basic assumption of the general short-term nature of business interests, it would be making false assumptions, at least for large parts of today's SME landscape.‘Cited text translated, original language German
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 suggest limiting the scope of complainants to directly affected stakeholders.
The entity states that 'Complaint mechanisms must be designed to be unbureaucratic and provide sufficient protection against abuse.o The proposed directive provides for the establishment of two complaint bodies or mechanisms. Companies should establish their own contact points (Article 9) in the event of a breach or suspected breach of due diligence obligations.In addition, there should be a national body (Article 19) for handling "substantiated suspicions." Both directly affected individuals and, for example, trade unions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should have the right to lodge a complaint. Complaint mechanisms must, first and foremost, be effective and must not complicate or even obstruct processes. To ensure legal certainty and avoid lawsuits by professional organizations that issue warnings, litigate, or campaign, options for complaint and litigation should be limited to those directly affected by the violations. It should also be possible to pool complaints bodies, for example, within industry initiatives. The complaints mechanism for "substantiated suspected cases" and the term itself suggest that these are potential violations with a certain degree of significance. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify that Article 19 refers only to possible violations of companies' due diligence obligations, but not to the obligations under Articles 15, 25, and 26.'Translated text, original language German
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 a mandatory legislation of this issue.
It indicates strong disagreement with a requirement for directors to establish communication channels with stakeholders and indicates that a complaints mechanism should be promoted as best practice rather than mandatory. It states 'It is a hallmark of companies, especially partnerships, in market economies that their business strategy is determined by the company itself and without interference from external social stakeholders. There is no reason for a shift toward collectivist models—especially in light of historical experience.’Cited text translated, original language German
Enabling judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence obligations.
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents.
The entity opposes the introduction of civil liability provisions in the proposal.
The statement indicates: 'The associations also clearly criticise the proposed civil liability. ‘It is simply impractical to demand that companies from EU member states should be liable for breaches of duty that occur in their supply chains - and worldwide,’ the appeal states. While non-governmental organisations are to benefit from their own rights of action, companies may be subject to additional evidentiary requirements. ‘In this way, the often incalculable liability risks can lead to companies withdrawing from affected regions,’ the associations warn. A new litigation industry would emerge, leading to more administrative costs for companies. Uncertainty in foreign trade would increase.'Translated text, original language German
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents.
The entity opposes civil liability provisions of the directive
The statement indicates that the undersinging entities are critisising the civil liability provisions. It states 'Their incalculable risks would also lead to companies withdrawing from difficult markets.'Translated text, original language German
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 inclusion of civil liability provisions in the directive
The entity states 'The imposition of sanctions must be clearly limited to intentional and grossly negligent violations, and civil liability must be excluded.'Text translated, original language German
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 indicate support for civil liability
It states that: “None of these mechanisms would be suitable to make a positive contribution“. It considers the envisioned duties and a liability for them to be incompatible with the German legal system. '"Civil law in Germany and other countries only allows liability for the conduct of business partners and other third parties in very narrowly exceptional cases. This also applies, and in particular, to possible human rights violations. In tort law, for example, the premise is that each person is fundamentally responsible only for their own conduct, not for that of others. Instead, companies can and should trust that the other legal participants will also act lawfully and with due care. Expanding human rights due diligence obligations to a kind of liability for risk or security for the supply chain is fundamentally alien to the system and raises numerous questions." The entity considers that such a legal duty would reverse the roles of state governments and companies with regards to human rights.Cited text translated, original language German.
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 the coverage of the full supply chain without indicating an alternative approach, Furthermore, the statement indicates opposition to the coverage of the downstream value chain.
The statement indicates 'According to the directive, companies are to monitor almost all stages of their supply chains globally for violations of human rights and environmental or social standards. Industrial companies in particular often have tens of thousands or even a six-figure number of suppliers, a considerable proportion of which change every year. The costs of compliance alone would often run into the millions for individual companies. ... According to the EU plans, not only suppliers and their suppliers are to be monitored, but also business customers. However, it is a completely unrealistic assumption that SMEs could dictate to their business customers how and where the products they sell are ultimately used.'Translated text, original language German
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents.
The entity appears to oppose full coverage of the supply chain suggesting to limit it to tier-1 suppliers and completely removing the downstream value chain
The statement indicates ' the scope of the directive is far too broad, extending far beyond the protection of human rights and companies' own production and labour sites. It requires companies to monitor almost all stages of their supply chains globally for violations of human rights and environmental or social standards. Industrial companies in particular often have tens of thousands or even a six-figure number of suppliers, a considerable proportion of which change every year. Many companies do not have the negotiating power to gain the required insight into the supply chain from their upstream suppliers. It therefore makes sense to limit the due diligence obligations to what companies can control and influence - their own operations, subsidiaries and suppliers at the first level of the upstream supply chain, where influence is possible due to market power and turnover.'Translated text, original language German
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 suggests limiting the scope of coverage of the supply chain to the first tier. It further indicates that a coverage of the downstream value chain requires further clarification including an exception for consumers.
The entity states: 'Corporate due diligence may only extend to the level that can actually be controlled by the companies concerned. In practice, this is the first level ("Tier 1"), i.e., only the direct suppliers of the companies concerned. The Commission's proposal is not yet clear and restrictive enough in this regard. ... If the level of a company's buyers is to be included, a clear definition is required that excludes private consumers from the group of buyers to be monitored.'Translated text, original language German
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 appears to not support a HRDD duty that spans the whole value chain.
It states that ''In Germany, as in other countries, civil law rightly only permits liability for the conduct of business partners and other third parties in very narrowly exceptional cases. This also applies, and in particular, to possible human rights violations. In tort law, for example, the premise is that each person is fundamentally responsible only for their own conduct, but not for that of others. Instead, companies can and should trust that the other legal participants will also act lawfully and with due care. Expanding human rights due diligence obligations to include a type of liability for risk or security for the supply chain is fundamentally alien to the system and raises numerous questions. Many companies, such as SMEs, would hardly be able to fulfill these requirements vis-à-vis all business partners, especially if they are part of a global supply chain over which they have only very limited influence. It is therefore not without reason that the UN Guiding Principles (UNGP) also provide for different levels of corporate responsibility. With regard to human rights impacts, Guiding Principle 13 of the UNGP distinguishes between a company's own activities and those resulting from its business relationships with other parties. In the latter case, Guiding Principle 13b) of the UNGP therefore merely requires appropriate "efforts" to prevent or avoid adverse impacts.'Cited text translated, original language German
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 duty for directors to identify stakeholders and their interests. It is unclear whether it supports or opposes a general duty for companies to do so.
The entity indicates it strongly disagrees with directors duties of this issue.
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 opposes a mandatory legislation of this issue
It indicates strong disagreement with a requirement for directors to establish communication channels with stakeholders.. It states ‘It is the hallmark of companies, especially partnerships, in market economies that the business strategy is determined by the company itself and without interference from external social stakeholders. There is no reason for a shift toward collectivist models—especially in light of historical experience.'Cited text translated, original language German
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 opposes such a duty for directors
It indicates that it strongly disagrees with the suggests areas of legal duties for directors. It states that ‘The question suggests that company management focuses primarily on the short-term financial interests of shareholders. This underlying assumption does not hold true in practice: Many companies in the textile and fashion industry are structured as partnerships under company law, not as corporations. Smaller companies in particular still have numerous personally liable partners. The success story of medium-sized businesses in Germany and other European countries since the middle of the last century would not have been possible if corporate performance had focused solely on short-term financial interests. Social and societal responsibility are at the core of the brand of the "German Mittelstand," which has become proverbial beyond the country's borders. Medium-sized companies are often family-run, often for several generations. It is very important to management to hand over a solid, sustainable business to their children and grandchildren. You vouch for the company's reputation and its diligence with your name. If the Commission were to base future EU supply chain legislation on the basic assumption of the general short-term nature of business interests, it would be making false assumptions, at least for large parts of today's SME business landscape.'Cited text translated, original language German
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Member | Performance band |
|---|
