Unilever

The entity supports mandatory human rights due diligence legislation at the EU level.

"Mandatory legislation can contribute to a competitive level-playing field, increase legal certainty about the standards expected from companies to respect human rights and the environment, clarify legal consequences for when responsibilities are not met, promote engagement and impactful actions between supply chain partners and, above all, trigger and incentivise impactful and effective actions on the ground. EU-wide cross-sectoral legislation, reflecting national developments and with clear accountability, should harmonise these expectations towards companies, ultimately enhancing outcomes for people and the planet."

Based on the joint letter “Support for EU framework on mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence,” signed by this entity: “We... welcome the announcement by the European Commissioner for Justice... that the European Commission will launch a legislative initiative on mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence.” “Mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence is key to ensure that efforts by companies that respect people and the planet... are not undercut by the lack of a uniform standard...” “Legislation introducing an obligation to conduct due diligence as defined by the UNGPs... is critical to bring all companies to the same standard...”

The statement, demonstrates clear and direct support for the creation of mandatory legislation on human rights and environmental due diligence, recognizing the importance of standardizing business conduct. The statement actively supports the creation of a binding directive on due diligence, advocating for it as essential to establishing a uniform and competitive standard.

The signatory organizations express clear support for the mandatory nature of due diligence, highlighting its importance for tangible outcomes in human rights, environmental protection, and climate action, as well as its role in establishing mandatory standards beyond sustainability disclosure.

“The CSDDD holds huge promise for leveling the playing field... as well as driving better outcomes for people and planet through global value chains.” “We support the CSDDD and the process to adopt an ambitious final law.” “The Directive should complement mandatory sustainability disclosure with substantive due diligence duties on human rights and environmental impacts…”

The signed entities support the introduction of mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation at the EU level, but call for 'practical feasibility' and oppose any additional or 'premature' legislation at the Dutch level.

"The CSDDD, along with the CSRD, can be considered the most far-reaching sustainability regulation for European companies. … We welcome European legislation on human rights and environmental due diligence, and DSCG companies are hard at work to prepare for this. The success of this legislation depends on four crucial aspects: 1) practical feasibility, 2) creating a level playing field in Europe, 3) actually influencing supply chains, and 4) promoting sectoral cooperation. There are still concerns about the quality of this legislation and we hope that the Dutch cabinet will take these four aspects into account.""No additional legislation at the Dutch level. Avoid national regulations in the Netherlands after the approval of EU legislation so that the level playing field and workability are not affected. The premature introduction of national regulations without a European framework should also be avoided." "Working together on effective implementation. We are keen to continue the dialogue between the DSCG and the government on the practical implementation of European legislation ... In this way, we can work together to ensure that companies - large and small - make significant but achievable efforts to carry out reporting and due diligence."

Signatories call the EU to not reopen the Directive for renegotiation.

‘The undersigned companies and industry associations continue to support the goals of the European Union’s sustainability due diligence … We write now to urge at this critical juncture that you focus on delivering the much-needed practical implementation of these rules. Investment and competitiveness are founded on policy certainty and legal predictability. The announcement that the European Commission will bring forward an “omnibus” initiative that could include revisiting existing legislation risks undermining both of these. … Therefore, we urge the European Commission to publicly clarify that this “omnibus approach,” if embarked upon, will not allow already agreed and adopted legal texts to be reopened for renegotiation. We are particularly concerned about the potential reopening of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), especially as the CSDDD does not introduce any overlapping reporting requirements’

The undersigned entity strongly supports an EU wide due diligence regulation and urges legislators to come to a timely resolution.

"The Cocoa Coalition has consistently supported the proposed EU Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence. We believe that it represents an important step forward in driving the necessary transformation of the cocoa and chocolate sector and in making human rights and environmental due diligence the norm in global value chains. We called for EU-wide due diligence legislation in the first position paper we published, in 2019.Accordingly, we urge support for finalising the text of the Directive as soon as possible and before the end of the current EU legislative term. Failure to do so would undermine the position of those companies aiming to put in place systems that protect human and labour rights and the environment. It would risk the emergence of a patchwork of national legislation in EU member states, increasing compliance costs without any benefit to the sector or consumers. This would be a major setback to sustainability in global supply chains."

The undersigned entity supports an EU wide due diligence regulation.

"A crucial element of an EU strategy to achieve this aim is the introduction of mandatory EU-wide due diligence legislation, including the cocoa sector – as we argued in our first joint position paper on the EU’s policy and regulatory approach to cocoa, in December 2019. This would help to create a framework for the sustainable and responsible consumption of cocoa (and other products) within the EU, the world’s largest consumer of cocoa and chocolate."

The undersigned entity makes proactive calls for the publication of an EU wide due diligence regulation

"An essential component of the regulatory and policy framework designed to secure the long-term sustainability of the cocoa supply chain is an EU regulation placing a due diligence obligation on all companies that place cocoa or cocoa products on the EU market." "We believe that this is necessary in order to achieve sector-wide change; to create a level playing field and consistency for companies operating in the sector; to identify the actions necessary to remove unsustainable practices; and to hold all actors accountable for any failure to apply due diligence in their supply chain, consistent with international standards, to identify and address adverse impacts on human rights and the environment." "An EU-wide regulation would have benefits for companies in the cocoa supply chain, providing a common framework through which they can show how they are seeking to identify and mitigate human rights and environmental risks. It would eliminate free riders and close loopholes, ensuring a level playing field for all companies. In addition, predictability and consistency with a single EU jurisdictional approach – rather than with many different systems at member-state level – would significantly increase legal certainty for companies and enhance the possibility to act at scale and in a consistent manner among different actors of the supply chain." "The due diligence obligation should be rooted in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011." "In line with this commitment, we call on the EU to begin a consultative process around our proposals for an EU-wide due diligence regulation within its first hundred days, aiming for a draft regulation to be published no later than the end of 2020."

The joint statement shows support for the legal framework on due diligence irrespective of diverging views on certain aspects.

The joint statement indicates that 'While we hold diverging views on certain aspects of the law, we are aligned in recognising the necessity of a common EU wide legal framework, as part of a smart and coherent mix of policy and legislative measures. We therefore urge the co-legislators to reach a political agreement in view of adopting the final version of the law ... We commend the co-legislators’ efforts in current negotiations toensure that the CS3D follows a risk-based approach and builds on existing globally recognised due diligence standards, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises ... Key elements of this risk-based approach include the recognition of different modes of involvement with adverse impacts and allowing companies to prioritise the most severe and likely ones'.

The entity supports the inclusion of all businesses within the scope of the legislation, without exceptions

All businesses, including SMEs and state-owned enterprises, as well as State entities engaging in public procurement, should be covered by due diligence legislation. This is necessary in order to achieve a level playing field and not distort the competitive landscape, and because all businesses may be involved with negative impacts. The means through which a business is expected to meet this responsibility should be proportional to the risk of it being involved with severe environmental or human rights impacts.

Based on the joint letter “Support for EU framework on mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence,” signed by this entity: “...legislation introducing an obligation to conduct due diligence as defined by the UNGPs and covering all business actors is critical to bring all companies to the same standard…”“EU-wide cross-sectoral legislation... should harmonise these expectations…”

The letter explicitly advocates that all companies, regardless of sector or size, should be subject to the legislation, reinforcing the idea of a "level playing field." The statement supports the universal application of the regulation, without sectoral or business-size exceptions, fully meeting the indicator.

The text asserts that the requirements should apply to all companies and sectors, including the financial sector.

“The due diligence requirements should be risk-based and apply to the entire spectrum of risks and impacts across the full value chains of companies in all sectors, including financial institutions…”

The undersigned entity supports requiring human rights due diligence of all companies regardless of sector or size, recognising the additional support needs of SME's.

"The regulation should apply to companies regardless of where they are based or registered or their legal form or size." "While all companies should play their part in establishing due diligence throughout the supply chain, we recognise that smaller companies are likely to possess much simpler supply chains and are less likely to be the initial importers of cocoa beans to the EU market. We do not believe, however, that they should be exempted from the due diligence obligation. In a very fragmented end market, the inclusion of smaller players is key to both large-scale impact and consumer trust."

The entity supports having supervision and enforcement at the national level, including regulatory fines.

Q19a: Option 3 "Supervision by competent national authorities (option 2) with a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination to ensure consistency throughout the EU" - "The implementation of any mandatory due diligence duty should be subject to supervision by the competent authorities of Member States or directly by the European Commission. To incentivise organisations to prepare and implement a due diligence process ... we think that steps should be taken to publicly censure that business followed by the imposition of regulatory fines if a business has not implemented due diligence within a reasonable period."

Based on the joint letter “Support for EU framework on mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence,” signed by this entity: "Mandatory legislation can... clarify legal consequences for when responsibilities are not met...”

The statement advocates that the legislation should establish clear legal consequences for non-compliance with due diligence obligations. Implicit support for enforcement mechanisms. Although it lacks detailed specifications (such as civil or administrative sanctions), the acknowledgment of the importance of legal consequences justifies a positive score

The joint statement shows support both for administrative enforcement and civil liability

The joint statement indicates that 'This common standard should be effectively enforced, recognising the need for a balanced combination of administrative enforcement and civil liability, as well as access to justice measures'.

The organizations demand that the directive include administrative oversight and civil liability, demonstrating explicit support for effective enforcement mechanisms.

“The Directive will not be effective without meaningful enforcement… This includes both administrative supervision and civil liability…”

The entity is opposed to the creation of any new directors' duties in relation to human rights impacts or harms.

Q6: "we do not take a position" - "We don’t believe any new laws are required in this area. Our Directors are already required by the law as it current stands to act in the way that they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company."Q7: "I strongly disagree" - "While procedures and targets can play an important role in supporting a business grow sustainably, we would expect directors to be in a position to consider whether these are appropriate for their business and what form they should take under existing legal duties to promote the success of the company (or similar)."

The entity calls for due diligence legislation to address companies' responsibility to provide remedy.

"The legislation should also address the responsibility of companies to take steps to ensure a remedy is available in certain circumstances (as is described in the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the UNGPS ...), while bearing in mind the role of the State and other stakeholders in setting the foundations for effective remedy."

The undersigned entity welcomes provisions to enable remedy for human rights impacts

"In accordance with the elements listed above, the regulation should require companies to provide for or cooperate with remediation mechanisms when appropriate, based on their connection to the impact; as described in the OECD Guidelines for Responsible Business Conduct"

The entity opposes any further legal requirements in relation to grievance mechanisms and argues that current legal frameworks are sufficient.

20c: "... we believe it is best left to each individual company to determine which mechanisms will work best for them and their stakeholders. Every business is unique and the mechanisms which are appropriate for one company may not work well for another."Q13: "In addition, we believe that current legal frameworks relating to employee engagement and protection are already sufficiently well developed."

The undersigned entity supports providing remediation mechanisms.

"... the regulation should require companies to provide for or cooperate with remediation mechanisms when appropriate, based on their connection to the impact; as described in the OECD Guidelines for Responsible Business Conduct, these provide routes through which impacted stakeholders, rights-holders and their representatives can bring complaints to the attention of companies and seek to have them addressed through a variety of non-judicial and judicial mechanisms."

The entity does not support judicial enforcement with civil liability and cautions a careful approach to legal responsibility.

"For enhanced predictability for business it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the role and limits of liability. While we believe that businesses should have a responsibility to undertake risk-based, proportionate and context-specific due diligence in relation to their own activities and their business relationships, this should not undermine the principle that each person should, as a general rule, be legally responsible only for their own acts and omissions. A careful approach is required in this area."

The undersigned entity supports including civil liability in the Directive.

"The absence or lack of a legally compliant company due diligence system should carry legal consequences which should be proportionate and dissuasive; this will help ensure that the due diligence system drives real change in the sector."

The entity supports the legislation covering companies' value chains.

Q3: benefits of an EU legal framework include, "Increasing legal certainty about how companies should tackle their impacts, including in their value chain" and "a non-negotiable standard would help companies increase their leverage in the value chain". Q14: Unilever also ... agrees with the elements of the proposed definition but calls for a clear alignment with international standards (such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and UNGPs) in this regard. Due diligence should be risk-based, proportionate and context-specific. While we believe that businesses should have a responsibility to undertake risk-based, proportionate and context-specific due diligence in relation to their own activities and their business relationships, this should not undermine the principle that each person should, as a general rule, be legally responsible only for their own acts and omissions. A careful approach is required in this area. The legislation should also address the responsibility of companies to take steps to ensure a remedy is available in certain circumstances (as is described in the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the UNGPS and outlined in our response to Question 15d below), while bearing in mind the role of the State and other stakeholders in setting the foundations for effective remedy.Q15: "The EU should define a minimum set of requirements with regard to the necessary processes which should be applicable across all sectors."

The statement advocates for enforcing due diligence in own operations and 'value chains'.

The statements shows support for the Directive in general, and also states that: 'The Directive aims to harmonise requirements for companies to carry out due diligence in their own operations, subsidiaries and value chains, thereby ensuring an EU-wide level playing field and avoiding market fragmentation. This common standard should be effectively enforced, recognising the need for a balanced combination of administrative enforcement and civil liability, as well as access to justice measures'.

The text clearly states that due diligence should apply to the entire value chain, including both upstream and downstream operations.

"The due diligence requirements should be risk-based and apply to the entire spectrum of risks and impacts across the full value chains of companies in all sectors, including financial institutions, in line with the international standards. The same concepts in those standards that make due diligence feasible in an upstream context – including prioritisation on the basis of severity and the need to look at how a company’s own activities can heighten or reduce risks across value chains – also make it feasible in a downstream context"

The statement warns against excessive reliance on contractual clauses, favoring collaboration-based approaches instead

“...rather than top-down policing through an overreliance on contracts and audits. Such an approach simply shifts responsibility...”

The entity does not support any new laws in this area, and advocate for stakeholder engagement to be left to the discretion of individual companies.

"We don’t believe any new laws are required in this area. Our Directors are already required by the law as it current stands to act in the way that they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company. In doing so, our Directors must have regard to the likely long term consequences of their decisions, the impact on the environment, the company’s reputation for high standards of business conduct, employees’ interests, fostering business relationships and the need to treat members fairly."

The entity is opposed to the creation of any new directors' duties in relation to stakeholder engagement.

20a: "we do not take a position" - "We don’t believe any new laws are required in this area. Our Directors are already required by the law as it currently stands to act in the way that they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company."

There's a support for stakeholder engagement throuhgout due diligence.

The joint statement indicates that: 'It is important that the Directive integrates stakeholder engagement as a critical component of effective due diligence, recognises the role of trade unions and worker representatives, and promotes effective collaboration between companies, including in the context of industry and multistakeholder initiatives'.

The letter links stakeholder engagement to risk assessment and the effectiveness of the company’s efforts.

"The distinguishing feature of sustainability due diligence is that it depends for its effectiveness and credibility on the perspectives of affected stakeholders. ... Meaningful and safe engagement with affected stakeholders –with special attention to people in vulnerable situations – is central to due diligence."

There's a support for stakeholder engagement throuhgout due diligence.

The joint statement indicates that: 'It is important that the Directive integrates stakeholder engagement as a critical component of effective due diligence, recognises the role of trade unions and worker representatives, and promotes effective collaboration between companies, including in the context of industry and multistakeholder initiatives'.

The entity is opposed to the creation of any new directors' duties in relation to stakeholders and their interests.

"We don’t believe any new laws are required in this area. Our Directors are already required by the law as it current stands to act in the way that they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company. In doing so, our Directors must have regard to the likely long term consequences of their decisions, the impact on the environment, the company’s reputation for high standards of business conduct, employees’ interests, fostering business relationships and the need to treat members fairly."