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 agrees that a legal framework is needed and advocates for a principles-based approach to the due diligence duty. However, the entity does not entirely agree with the definition of due diligence.
In response to question 2 it agrees that a legal framework is needed. It states the following: '‘Our members estimate that although an EU legal framework might be needed, it will be very challenging to ensure a level playing field and avoid additional administrative burden for enterprises. Already today companies, especially cooperatives, reach out to the relevant stakeholders in order to reflect their concern in their major decisions. …. And even without legislation, many European companies have been engaged for many years in putting responsible business conduct (RBC) at the heart of their strategies and operations. Any initiatives relating to the reach-out to stakeholders must not lead to an excessive administrative burden. Many sustainability-related elements are already included in annual reports on a voluntary basis and cooperative enterprises have examples of going beyond legislation in terms of tripartite sustainability’. It advocates for a principles-based approach to due diligence (question 15). However, does not enterely agree with due diligence duty definition proposed (question 14) as it considers it to be 'too far and vague for a legal definition'.
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 welcomes the proposal for a Directive. Although it focuses the feedback on the problems that it has identified, it is generally supportive.
The entity states that 'Cooperatives Europe welcomes this proposal, which aims at promoting a more democratic and sustainable business model in Europe. This proposal is aligned with our objective of putting people before profit and with cooperatives’ core values of human dignity, collective ownership and democratic governance. However, several loopholes and weaknesses seem to undermine its purposes and deserve attention'. It then describes its comments on different topics.
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.
Although the entity is in favour of a horizontal approach covering all sectors, it considers that all SMEs should be excluded.
The entity responded to question 16 that all SMEs should be excluded, without further elaboration. It advocates for a principles-based approach in question 15, which is a horizontal approach covering all sectors. There is no further explanation to question 15 either.
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 the Directive, as currently designed, would be detrimental to SMEs
The entity states that 'This proposal threatens to impose additional barriers to SME cooperatives, which already face many obstacles as smaller market players. Any additional burden (financial, administrative or regulatory ones) would further limit their access to market, challenge their competitiveness and undermine efforts of coops operating in the field of the green/energy/digital transition, which are the biggest challenges ahead of us and the Commission’s priorities at the moment. In addition, support measures to SMEs by Member States and large companies shall apply to all legal forms of enterprises (including all types of cooperatives) and shall be more precisely/explicitly defined in the text in order to avoid varying interpretations'.
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.
Although the entity selects two enforcement mechanisms, it is not clear the scope of enforcement.
In response to question 19a, that allows multiple choices, the entity selects both judicial enforcement with liability and compensation and supervision by national authorities based on complaints with a mechanism of EU coordination. It states that '‘The focus should also be primarily on business relations outside the EU. For commercial activities within the EU there should be a presumption of conformity with legal standards. Making companies confirm that they meet the legal standards of their country would be counterproductive and end up in an unnecessary administrative burden. The size of companies should be taken into consideration. Hence, the rules for corporate governance should be targeting corporations and not SMEs, as such requirements would generate a disproportionate bureaucratic obligation for SMEs. … The due diligence rules should also apply to certain third-country companies which are not established in the EU but carry out (certain) activities in the EU, as in principle, obligations for third country corporates should be commensurate with obligations arising for corporate entities established in the EU and have a level playing field’.
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.
It considers that the EC must have a more prominent role in supervision and coordination.
The entity states that 'the majority of the Directive’s implementation is left to Member State level, including support measures for SMEs and designating supervisory authorities in charge of compliance. To avoid fragmentation and undermining the level playing, the EC must take up a strong coordination role in the process, esp. in the European Network of Supervisory authorities'.
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 disagrees 'to some extent' that directros should be required to 'manage risks for the company in relation to stakeholders and their interests' and to establish proceddures to ensure that risks and impacts are identified, prevented and addressed.
The entity disagrees with the introduction of a legal obligation for directors to manage stakeholder-related risks, as per questions 6 and 7. It does not elaborate on its choices
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 cooperatives already address this aspect through their governance model, and that the proposal risks diminishing that focus.
The entity states that '‘The Directive does not take into account cooperative governance practices which already take into account stakeholders’ interests (and therefore risks) as they may be involved in the governance. Coops are owned by their members and their primary objective is the promotion of their members’ interest and the maximization of members’ benefits, not the maximization of profit. Hence, the duty of care for their members is already enshrined in their activity and their by-laws. Any unmitigated or disproportionate expansion of the duty of care for cooperatives’ directors’ risks diminishing that primary focus and, in turn, diluting the director duties that underpin it’.
Require companies to provide remedy for human rights impacts they have caused or contributed to.
Direct Consultation with Governments
Comments from the entity submitted through official regulatory and legislative consultation processes, or via meetings and other direct engagements with policymakers. Includes evidence obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests.
Although it does not explicitly refer to impact remediation, it picks as enforcement mechanism judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence obligations. It is not clear what scope of enforcement it expects or would support.
Although it does not explicitly refer to impact remediation, it picks as enforcement mechanism judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence obligations (question 19a). However, it is not clear the scope it would apply to this enforcement mechanism, as it states the following: ‘The focus should also be primarily on business relations outside the EU. For commercial activities within the EU there should be a presumption of conformity with legal standards. Making companies confirm that they meet the legal standards of their country would be counterproductive and end up in an unnecessary administrative burden. The size of companies should be taken into consideration. Hence, the rules for corporate governance should be targeting corporations and not SMEs, as such requirements would generate a disproportionate bureaucratic obligation for SMEs. … The due diligence rules should also apply to certain third-country companies which are not established in the EU but carry out (certain) activities in the EU, as in principle, obligations for third country corporates should be commensurate with obligations arising for corporate entities established in the EU and have a level playing field’.
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 does not respond to question regarding grievance mechanism, it is not in favour of a mandatory requirement for establishing mechanisms for stakeholder consultation.
The entity did not respond to question 20c on whether grievance mechanisms as part of due diligence should be promoted at EU level. Although it agrees 'to some extent' to question 20a on directors' duty to establish mechanisms for engaging with stakeholders as part of due diligence duty, it states that 'we would not support the introduction of a mandatory requirement, but rather foster a self-regulation approach ...'.
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.
Although the entity supports judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in cases of harm caused by not fulfilling due diligence obligations, it appears to advocate for focusing such enforcement outside the EU.
In response to question 19a, that allows multiple choices, the entity selects judicial enforcement with liability and compensation as one of its options. It states that '‘The focus should also be primarily on business relations outside the EU. For commercial activities within the EU there should be a presumption of conformity with legal standards. Making companies confirm that they meet the legal standards of their country would be counterproductive and end up in an unnecessary administrative burden. The size of companies should be taken into consideration. Hence, the rules for corporate governance should be targeting corporations and not SMEs, as such requirements would generate a disproportionate bureaucratic obligation for SMEs. … The due diligence rules should also apply to certain third-country companies which are not established in the EU but carry out (certain) activities in the EU, as in principle, obligations for third country corporates should be commensurate with obligations arising for corporate entities established in the EU and have a level playing field’.
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 the entity is in favour of a legal requirement for due diligence and advocates for a principles based approach, it does not agree with some parts of due diligence definition.
The entity agrees that a legal framework is needed (question 2) and adovcates for a principles based approach (question 15). It, however, shows some disagreement with due diligence duty definition: ‘According to our members, such definition is too far and vague for a legal definition, with its limitations in terms of scope and effect. The content of due diligence requirements should be based on clearly defined principles in order to avoid legal uncertainty. Flexibility would be needed to apply these principles to the different industrial sectors. This definition should focus on the importance of proportionality with respect to (a) discharging the primary duty to sustain an effective business service and (b) the need for any due diligence burden to be reasonable, “inherent risk-based, proportionate and context specific” to the entity and its board of directors’. The entity does not refer to scope of vale chain, remedy, or improvement over time.
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' with a legal requirement (for directors) to identify stakeholders and their interests.
In its response to question 6, the entity agrees 'to some extent' with a legal requirement (for directors) to identify stakeholders and their interests. It does not elaborate on its response.
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 is already part of what its members do.
It states that 'he Directive does not take into account cooperative governance practices which already take into account stakeholders’ interests (and therefore risks) as they may be involved in the governance. Coops are owned by their members and their primary objective is the promotion of their members’ interest and the maximization of members’ benefits, not the maximization of profit.
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 that the EU should require directors to establish mechanisms for engaging with stakeholders as part of due diligence duty.
It disagrees to some extent (question 20a) with a mandatory requirement to establish mechanisms for engaging in stakeholder consultation. It states that ‘According to our members, further EU actions are not necessary, considering that the existing stakeholder dialogue and the existing consultation channels should be used, without compelling directors by law to establish and apply such mechanisms. Furthermore, cooperatives have already the best understanding about the relevance of the different stakeholders by gathering their views and information on voluntary basis. Thus, we consider that it should be up to each company to define its most relevant stakeholders and the best way to organize the dialogue with them’.
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 disagrees 'to some extent' with a legal requirement for directors to manage risks for the company in relation to stakeholders
In its response to question 6, the entity disagrees 'to some extent' with a legal requirement for directors to manage risks for the company in relation to stakeholders. It does not elaborate on its response.
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Member | Performance band |
|---|
