Amfori

The undersigned entities call for a pragmatic implementation of the CSDDD and for the Commission to not weaken the sustainability legislation through the Omnibus initiative

"We remain certain that the adopted directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD) will bring scale to current due diligence efforts and support the practical implementation of international standards (such as the OECD Guidelines, the UNGPs, and ILO Conventions). we reiterate our full support for pragmatic implementation of the EU sustainability due diligence framework which will level the playing field across global supply chains. Legal certainty is essential, not only for businesses to operate effectively within the EU market but also for our global trading partners to engage with EU businesses. We therefore call on the Commission to ensure that its “bolder, simpler, faster” mission does not result in weakening the CSRD and CSDDD text regarding sustainability due diligence."

In its post on LinkedIn, Amfori expresses clear support for the existence of a mandatory legal framework for due diligence, as long as it aligns with existing practices and international standards. It publicly supports the approval of the political agreement on the CSDDD

The statement indicates “We have been supportive of the idea of an EU-wide framework for responsible business conduct since the very start...”“We therefore call on EU policymakers to endorse the political agreement...”

The entity considers that a legal framework on due diligence is needed, preferably a Regulation, and that it should be an ongoing, proactive process driven by continuous improvement

In response to question 2, the entity considers thata an EU legal framework is needed, as it could help to level the playing field, maximise the efforts of all those involved, streamline approaches, etc. It also sates that 'due diligence is intended to be an ongoing, proactive process driven by continuous improvement'. It advocates for combining elements of different approaches, including cross-sectorial princples-based approach togeteher with minimum process and definitions approach. In addition, it advocates for a Regulation instead of Directive: 'A Directive risks undermining the primary objective of harmonisation since it would need to be embodied into national legislation. A Regulation, on the contrary, could ensure there is no differentiated approach at national level'.

The entity is in favour of mandatory due diligence (calls for further strengthening ambition), and calls for improvement over time and disclosure.

It states that: 'While we applaud the EU Commission’s level of ambition, we believe the proposal in its current form falls short of its policy objectives and needs further strengthening, in terms of enhanced harmonisation, greater legal certainty, full level playing field and stronger alignment with international standards. In this paper we offer a set of recommendations to improve the proposal …' It goes on to say that: ‘we urge the EU institutions to works towards achieving full harmonisation’. Finally, it also indicates that ‘Due diligence is intended to be ongoing. When gaps or shortcomings are identified, companies are expected to have processes in place to manage them and provide for remedy where appropriate. Legislation should encourage companies to disclose the steps they are taking to manage risks and, if applicable, remediate adverse impacts that might have occurred’.

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 letter expresses support for the Directive and calls for maximum harmonisation across several articles.

The letter states that 'Our associations remain supportive of the proposed directive on corporate sustainability due diligence. However, we call strongly for maximum harmonisation provisions to be introduced into the legal framework so as to ensure a level playing field and avoid further internal market fragmentation. Divergent national legal regimes on due diligence would not only be costly and burdensome for companies of all sizes but, more importantly, risk undermining the achievement of the goals of the legislation in an efficient and effective manner'. Specifcally, 'we urge the European Parliament and Member States to adopt maximum harmonisation provisions such as those previously applied to consumer law. At a minimum such provisions should be applied to the scope (Art.2), definitions (Art.3), due diligence process (Arts. 4-8), communication (Art. 11), guidelines (Art.13), sanctions (Art. 20) and civil liability (Art. 22)'.

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 statement highlights the need to maintain alignment with voluntary standards while creating a mandatory framework

"The EU CSDDD was designed to translate decade-long voluntary standards on responsible business conduct into a mandatory framework. Maintaining alignment with those very standards remains crucial for businesses."

The statement calls for preserving the core of the EU sustainable finance framework, including corporate due diligence, considering that regulatory simplification can be achieved without compromising the substance of the new rules.

Signatories ‘are issuing this joint statement to emphasise the importance of preserving the core of the EU sustainable finance framework. Rules on … corporate due diligence are a key foundation for achieving the EU’s economic and sustainability goals. … In the context of the Omnibus I simplification initiative, we call attention to the investors, banks, other financial institutions and companies across our economy that support preserving the core elements of the … Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). … CSRD/ESRS and CSDDD are essential for achieving the EU’s wider sustainability, growth and competitiveness ambitions. … The signatories of this statement consider that regulatory simplification can be achieved without compromising on the substance of sustainability rules or their significant benefits for businesses across the EU’.

The entity is in favour of a regulatory approach towards due diligence.

"""Re: Companies call for a level playing field on due diligence...... Our associations remain supportive of the proposed directive on corporate sustainability due diligence. However, we call strongly for maximum harmonisation provisions to be introduced into the legal framework so as to ensure a level playing field and avoid further internal market fragmentation. Divergent national legal regimes on due diligence would not only be costly and burdensome for companies of all sizes but, more importantly, risk undermining the achievement of the goals of the legislation in an efficient and effective manner."""

The entity is in favour of a regulatory approach towards due diligence.

"""As industry associations / responsible business initiatives, we stand behind the EU’s objective to ensure respect for human rights and the environment through an EU-harmonised regulatory approach to due diligence""""We call for: Full harmonisation and consistency of EU due diligence requirements in sectoral and cross-sectoral policies and legal frameworks, in terms of scope, standards and enforcement modalities to ensure respect of better regulation principles."""

The entity advocates for a horizontal, cross-sectoral approach to due diligence and does not support excluding any company based on size.

In response to question 15, the entity states that 'To bring scattered efforts to scale, to create a level playing field and to generate more leeway along supply chains, a horizontal, cross-sectoral diligence duty based on key process requirements appears to be the right approach’. Question 16 asks how the burden can be reduced for smaller companies, including the option of excluding them from the legislation. The entity does not select any of the proposed exclusions, and instead advocates for providing guidance and support to SMEs

The entity considers that: 'the ultimate ambition of the EU law should be that operating in the EU internal market is conditional upon conducting due diligence, regardless of sector, size and supply chain'.

The entity states that: ‘International standards leave no doubt: due diligence is a business responsibility regardless of company size or position in the supply chain. … expectations need to be reasonable and commensurate to the capacity, resources and leverage of a given business. Proportionality therefore becomes key alongside flexibility. We still believe the ultimate ambition of the EU law should be that operating in the EU internal market is conditional upon conducting due diligence, regardless of sector, size and supply chain. This could be achieved by means of a progressive expansion of the scope of the Directive for instance, and by factoring in clear time-bound transitional periods for that expansion. Both proportionality and flexibility should be applied so that the due diligence duty does not become too heavy a burden, especially for smaller players who might lack resources, knowledge or time to take up those practices’.

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 entity advocates for supervision by national authorities based on complaints (and/or reporting) about non-compliance with setting up and implementing due diligence measures, etc. with effective sanctions (such as fines). This should include a coordinating mechanism.

The entity advocates for supervision by national authorities based on complaints (and/or reporting) about non-compliance with setting up and implementing due diligence measures, etc. with effective sanctions (such as fines). In its response to question 19a it also adds: '‘The EU needs to design a smart mix of policy measures, including incentives such as import duties, changes in public procurement policies, taxonomy, trade and investment policies. Continuous improvement is key: the forthcoming legislation needs to encourage companies to collaborate with their suppliers and business partners. Businesses should not be regarded as non-compliant where they did all that was reasonably expected. Non-compliance should be limited to instances where there is a total lack of HRDD, false statements or gross negligence. Instances of non-compliance should be proportionate to the leverage of the company and commensurate with the adverse impact, in particular for SMEs’.

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 entity calls for a harmonised enforcement mechanism

"EU-wide mandatory due diligence legislation that is implemented in a harmonized way across the EU Member States will translate into greater efficiency, increased clarity of expectations and greater legal certainty for businesses. The harmonisation should encompass not just the due diligence standard but also the enforcement mechanism attached to it. We see a risk that the current proposal will create a fragmented litigation landscape and legal uncertainty compared to the adopted version."

Entity supports the proposal in general terms

"We call for: ""Full harmonisation and consistency of EU due diligence requirements in sectoral and crosssectoral policies and legal frameworks, in terms of scope, standards and enforcement modalities to ensure respect of better regulation principles.""""The European Commission to facilitate engagement between enforcement agencies at Member State level by (for example) establishing an EU-level expert group, to ensure coherent national enforcement."""

The entity considers that companies should provide remediation where appropriate.

In response to question 15, regarding due diligence duty approach, the entity states the following:'companies operating in the EU should be required to act diligently by understanding the risks and impacts they cause, contribute to or may be directly linked to; by managing them on the basis of a prioritised approach and by providing remediation where appropriate'.

The entity indicates that when gaps or shortcomings are identified, companies are expected to have processes in place that include remedy where appropriate.

The entity states that: ‘Due diligence is intended to be ongoing. When gaps or shortcomings are identified, companies are expected to have processes in place to manage them and provide for remedy where appropriate. Legislation should encourage companies to disclose the steps they are taking to manage risks and, if applicable, remediate adverse impacts that might have occurred’.

The entity recognises the relevance of leverage in the enforcement context, but does not explicitly refer to support for remediation efforts.

In response to question 19, the entity states that: 'Businesses should not be regarded as non-compliant where they did all that was reasonably expected. Non-compliance should be limited to instances where there is a total lack of HRDD, false statements or gross negligence. Instances of non-compliance should be proportionate to the leverage of the company and commensurate with the adverse impact, in particular for SMEs'.

The entity favours a collaborative model affirming that companies should take ownership of how they are connected to risks and impacts throughout the supply chain, advocating for a shared responsibility model rather than a top-down delegation approach.

The entity states that ‘In the spirit of international norms, due diligence requires companies to engage to understand how they relate to potential or actual risks and to take ownership by managing risks and impacts to which they might be connected. For due diligence to effect positive impact on the ground, it should ideally result in every actor along the supply chain taking its share of responsibility and owning its due diligence. Due diligence would therefore become a real supply chain endeavour. By singling out contractual cascading, however, the current proposal would seem to encourage a top-down approach to due diligence and could be misinterpreted as incentivising the shifting of responsibility further up the supply chain, instead of fostering a more inclusive approach. We suggest that the CSDDD proposal make it clearer that contractual cascading and third-party verification systems are just tools within a broader HREDD toolbox. This means that, depending on the maturity of a company’s due diligence processes and programmes and/or that of their supplier base, or the nature of the risk in question, other complementary strategies could be equally deployed’. Finally, it also indicates that 'disengagement should be done responsibly and be regarded as an option of last resort'.

The entity considers that grievance mechanisms as part of due diligence duty should be promoted at the EU level.

In its response to question 20c, the entity considers that 'workers' voice, local communities complaints and grievance mechanisms' should be promoted at the EU level as part of companies' due diligence requirements. It is not clear, however, if it advocates for grievance mechanisms being available to all stakeholders, including those in the value chain. In relation to stakeholder representation, it states that: 'Since a company may be linked to very many different stakeholders, each company should conduct an assessment of the most relevant stakeholders and prioritise engagement with those / their proxies that are deemed most relevant on the basis of a risk and impact analysis'.

The entity doesn't consider this a suitable option as enforcement mechanism.

Question 19a asks about enforcement mechanisms through a multiple-choice format, one of which is 'judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence obligations'. The entity did not select this as one of its preferred measures, nor did it mention liability and compensation in its explanation to the question.

The entity considers the current proposal around civil liability to not be clear.

The entity states that: 'the provision around civil liability does not make it clear where a company's liability would start or end'. It calls for the EU Directive to provide greater legal certainty.

The entity points out that a risk-based approach would be more effective than a restriction to tier-1 with additional obligations where there is 'plausible information' as proposed by the Omnibus proposal

"At first glance, this appears to offer a simpler, more manageable approach. But does it actually deliver on that promise of simplification? Or could it, in practice, require more from companies, just in a far less structured and predictable way? In other words, could this end up costing companies and their suppliers even more? A closer look suggests that the answer may be the latter. To comply, companies would need to monitor all tier 1 suppliers indiscriminately, regardless of their actual risks. They should also remain on constant alert for potential issues that could arise beyond that first tier. The vague standard of ‘plausible information’ would leave companies in a permanent state of reaction, locked in a cycle of crisis management—putting out fires instead of preventing them. This undermines any opportunity for strategic focus and efficient resource allocation. Rather than reducing administrative burden, this model risks creating more work, not less. By contrast, a genuine risk-based approach would be far more effective. It would put companies in control, allowing them to assess where the greatest risks lie and direct their efforts accordingly."

The entity calls for clarification in relation to some terms of contained in due diligence duty defintion. It does not refer to scope of due diligence, although it does refer to remedy where appropriate and that due diligence should be an ongoing, proactive process driven by continuous improvement.

The entity considers that an EU legal framework on due diligence is needed (question 2). In relation to due diligence duty definition (question 14), it states that 'Both the notions of “business relationship” and that of “reasonable efforts” are not clearly defined. Therefore, we anticipate that the lack of clarity will lead to differing interpretations and potentially to confusion as to what it is expected of businesses. Any definitions of due diligence duty should be anchored to international normative frameworks like the UNGPs and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Due diligence is intended to be an ongoing, proactive process driven by continuous improvement. It is conducted in a way that is proportionate to the company’s size and leverage in the supply chain. It helps companies understand and progressively increase the knowledge of their supply chains. Its primary objective is preventative in nature, though due diligence is also about identifying, mitigating, accounting for and eventually remediating adverse impacts when appropriate … As part of their due diligence efforts, companies should be allowed to prioritise risks in their supply chains on the basis of their leverage, degree of involvement with the adverse impact, severity and likelihood of the risk materialising. … A company's actions, subsequent responsibility and annexed accountability should be nuanced depending on its degree of “involvement” with the negative impact, i.e. whether a company caused, contributed to or was directly linked to an adverse impact. This approach should be aligned with the UNGPs'. Finally, it advocates for a combination of principles-based and minimum requirements approach, applied across sectors.

The entity supports a due diligence requirement covering the whole supply chain (no explicit mention of both upstream and downstream), and a continuous improvement approach that provides solutions where appropriate. Legislation should encourage companies to disclose the steps they are taking to manage risks.

The entity states that: ‘In the spirit of international norms, due diligence requires companies to engage to understand how they relate to potential or actual risks and to take ownership by managing risks and impacts to which they might be connected. For due diligence to effect positive impact on the ground, it should ideally result in every actor along the supply chain taking its share of responsibility and owning its due diligence. Due diligence would therefore become a real supply chain endeavour’. It also points out that: ‘Due diligence is intended to be ongoing. When gaps or shortcomings are identified, companies are expected to have processes in place to manage them and provide for remedy where appropriate. Legislation should encourage companies to disclose the steps they are taking to manage risks and, if applicable, remediate adverse impacts that might have occurred. This would mean recognising that due diligence is not about perfection but rather about engaging and aiming at continuous improvement’.

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 entity strongly argues for full supply chain coverage in an ongoing due diligence process. However, no information was found on its position on the downstream value chain.

"From our experience, we know that severe risks to people and planet in global supply chains commonly lie beyond direct suppliers - in deeper tiers such as raw material extraction and manufacturing semi-finished products. Effective due diligence and risk management are a continuous process and cannot be achieved by monitoring only certain suppliers once every five years. An arbitrary limitation could expose businesses to more risks and higher costs, with detrimental impacts for workers. If businesses know their supply chain better, they will be better prepared to deal with any problem that might materialise. Effective risk management, therefore, makes business sense since it reinforces both preparedness and supply chain resilience. Moreover, by focusing only on direct suppliers, the proposal puts more ambitious companies that invest in transparency and traceability along their supply chain at a disadvantage."

The statement calls for not limiting due diligence to tier-1 suppliers.

It states that 'the most salient ... risks and impacts often lie deeper in supply chains. A risk-based approach to due diligence is helpful to companies as this allows them to focus on where the real risks are, building on their knowledge of their own supply chains. By limiting due diligence to tier 1 suppliers, the Omnibus proposal may unintentionally promote the kind of “box ticking” compliance exercises that it intends to reduce'.

The entity advocates for the proposal to consider specific risks and impacts of business activities on vulnerable groups and calls for the use of stakeholder engagement, capacity building and colalboartion with business partners in due diligence and when working on adverse impacts.

The entity states that: ‘Once this assessment is completed and a vulnerability lens applied throughout the process, businesses can prioritise their actions on the basis of the severity and likelihood of the risk materializing. The current proposal moves away from this spirit and asks that companies look at the nature of their business relationships instead of focusing on where risks might be the most severe. The proposal further remains silent on the need to account for the specific risks and differentiated impacts of business activities on vulnerable groups such as women, migrant workers and children. We encourage the EU Institutions to reconsider this point by organising the HREDD logic in alignment with the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines. This would mean first and foremost embedding a risk-based approach and the related logic of prioritisation within the proposed due diligence duty. It would also mean expecting businesses to apply a vulnerability lens throughout the due diligence process.' It also points out that: ‘The Directive could also make it clearer that capacity building, engagement with stakeholders and collaboration with business partners are equally important tools to be leveraged when undertaking due diligence and when working on adverse impacts’.

The entity supports the use of contract clauses, but only as one tool within a broader human rights due diligence toolbox.

The entity states that: ‘For due diligence to effect positive impact on the ground, it should ideally result in every actor along the supply chain taking its share of responsibility and owning its due diligence. Due diligence would therefore become a real supply chain endeavour. By singling out contractual cascading, however, the current proposal would seem to encourage a top-down approach to due diligence and could be misinterpreted as incentivising the shifting of responsibility further up the supply chain, instead of fostering a more inclusive approach. We suggest that the CSDDD proposal make it clearer that contractual cascading and third-party verification systems are just tools within a broader HREDD toolbox. This means that, depending on the maturity of a company’s due diligence processes and programmes and/or that of their supplier base, or the nature of the risk in question, other complementary strategies could be equally deployed’.

The entity responds that it agrees to some extent to directors being required to establish consultation channels for engaging with stakeholders.

The entity responds that it agrees to some extent to directors being required to establish consultation channels for engaging with stakeholders (question 20a). It states that: 'Conducting due diligence also requires stakeholder engagement. Since a company may be linked to very many different stakeholders, it should be understood as a prioritised form of engagement with a selected pool of relevant stakeholders identified on the basis of the company’s own risk and impact analysis'.

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 criticises the removal of NHRIs and CSOs from the scope of stakeholders that companies have to engage with on their HRDD process

"The proposal removes national human rights and environmental institutions and civil society organisations from the scope of stakeholder engagement with whom companies must carry out meaningful engagement as part of their due diligence efforts. This will significantly reduce the effectiveness of any due diligence – particularly for preventative and correction action plans – as it is exactly these organisations that have the knowledge and experience required."

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'.