Association des assureurs mutualistes (AAM)
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 considers it sufficient to ask companies to follow existing guidelines and standards, rather than pursue a legal framework. It appears to agree with the definition of due diligence duty, but does not support any of the proposed approaches.
The entity considers it sufficient to ask companies to follow existing guidelines and standards, rather than to pursue a legal framework (question 2). It appears to agree with the definition of due diligence duty (question 14), stating that 'Mutual insurance companies generally agree with this definition', but does not support any of the proposed approaches (question 15).
Requiring Human rights due diligence of all companies, regardless of sector and size, while still reflecting their individual circumstances.
Direct Consultation with Governments
Comments from the entity submitted through official regulatory and legislative consultation processes, or via meetings and other direct engagements with policymakers. Includes evidence obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests.
The entity opposes a size-based approach to reducing due diligence obligations and instead supports a proportionality principle tailored to individual circumstances, which can be interpreted as the implicit acceptance that companies of all sizes should be covered. The entity does not explicitly refer to individual sectors, with its response being made solely from the perspective of a mutual insurance company. Their reply seems to accept that companies of all sectors should be included.
In response to question 15 about approach (horizontal or vertical), the entity responds that: 'For mutual insurance companies, the approach to follow is primarily the one defined by the members and their elected representatives, based on shared values and operating principles that stem from the democratic expression of the members and elected representatives'. In response to question 16 about reducing the burden on smaller companies, it replied: ''In the mutualist world, sustainable governance already exists due to its operational model. However, the approach should not be based on company size, but rather on the principle of proportionality. A focus solely on SMEs seems too narrow and inappropriate to us'. *Translated text, original in French
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 advocates for supervision by national authorities based con complaints about non-compliance with setting up and implementing due diligence with effective sections, with a mechanism of EU coordination to ensure consistency.
It also states (question 19a) that 'this response seems to us the best solution to ensure harmonised application across European countries and to resolve potential cross border conflicts'.Translated text, original in French
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 states that it strongly disagrees with directors being required to establish procedures to ensure that possible risks and impacts on stakeholders are identified, prevented and addressed.
It strongly disagrees with question 7; however, its explanation focuses solely on the director's obligations and doesn't refer to the requirement of avoiding harm: 'The board of directors is intended to manage the company’s overall direction. Its primary role is to define strategic choices and exercise oversight. There can be no transfer of responsibility from the operational management to the board of directors'.Translated text, original in French.
Enabling judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence obligations.
Direct Consultation with Governments
Comments from the entity submitted through official regulatory and legislative consultation processes, or via meetings and other direct engagements with policymakers. Includes evidence obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests.
The company doesn't consider this a suitable option as an 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 company did not select this as one of its preferred measures.
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.
The entity is not in favour of a legal requirement to implement the due diligence duty. Although it appears to agree with the definition of due diligence duty, it does not take a position on the proposed approaches, and believes that the best approach should be decided by elected representatives.
The entity is not in favour of a legal framework for supply chain due diligence (question 2). In relation to due diligence duty definition, it appears to indirectly agrees with it, as it states that, 'Mutual insurance companies generally agree with this definition.' Finally, it does not pick any of the approaches proposed, stating that: 'For mutual insurance companies, the approach to follow is primarily the one defined by the members and their elected representatives, based on shared values and operating principles that stem from the democratic expression of the members and elected representatives'.*Translated text, original in French
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 to this requirement.
In response to question 6 on stakeholder identification, the entity agrees to some extent. It provides additional explanation, although this relates to the directors' duty component of the question, which is not evaluated under this indicator. Finally, the entity does not take a position on the relevance of employees and communities in the supply chain as stakeholders.
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 Company strongly disagrees with this requirement.
The requirements for this indicator are asked by question 20a, to which the company strongly disagrees. It states that: 'The board of directors is intended to manage the overall direction of the company. Its primary role is to define strategic choices and exercise oversight. There can be no transfer of responsibility from the operational management to the board of directors. Our governance already includes employee representatives on the boards of directors. There should be no parallel procedures'.Translated text, original in French
Require that corporate directors should manage the human rights risks for the company in relation to stakeholders and their interest including on the long run.
Direct Consultation with Governments
Comments from the entity submitted through official regulatory and legislative consultation processes, or via meetings and other direct engagements with policymakers. Includes evidence obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests.
Although the entity agrees to some extent to this question, it opposes to directors' duty on this matter.
In response to question 6a that addresses this issue, the entity agrees 'to some extent'. It then states that: 'The proposed wording is very operational. However, the board of directors is intended to manage the company’s overall direction. Its primary role is to define strategic choices and exercise oversight over proposals made by the executive team. It operates through collective responsibility and competence'Translated text, original in French
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Member | Performance band |
|---|---|
| MAIF | C+ |
