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.
It is in favour of a horizontal framework that harmonises the market, however, it warns for the limitation of a directive rather than a regulation and highlights national DD legislations should not be reduced.
The entity indicates that ‘The BME is in favour of the EU Directive establishing a horizontal framework to further harmonise the starting points of companies operating in the internal market, to provide more legal certainty and a level playing field’. However, it adds: ‘The choice of a ‘EU Directive’ rather than a ‘Regulation’ means that the requirements are not directly applicable in the Member States but have to be transposed into national law. This may lead to different legal interpretation corridors in the EU internal market in the Member States. ... It is good to say that the EU Directive must not be used to reduce national due diligence legislation in its level of protection. Higher requirements in the Member States are a priority’.
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.
It favours SMEs exclusion from due diligence duties, as well as burden reduction and capacity building. As for the sectors, it advocates for a horizontal approach and questions distinctions between sectors.
The Company indicates that ‘it is very welcome that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) ..., are exempted from due diligence.... However, SMEs will be exposed to some of the costs and burdens, ... through business relations with companies, as large companies will pass on the requirements to their suppliers. Therefore, the approach in the EU Directive is very good to limit the burden on these large companies to the smaller suppliers in the value chain. ...’. Moreover, ‘The BME is in favour of the EU Directive establishing a horizontal framework ... In order to ensure that the burden on companies remains proportionate, it is recommended that due diligence in sectors with high potential harm is focused on serious negative impacts. In general, however, the question arises as to whether it is appropriate to distinguish sectors in terms of due diligence. Although there are different risks, due diligence remains the same for all’.
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.
For this entity, authorities should consider how much effort the company actually made to comply before deciding on imposition and level of sanctions.
The entity indicates that ‘The BME agrees that when deciding on the imposition and level of sanctions, due account shall be taken of the undertaking’s efforts. Therefore, in an effort to ensure due diligence, companies should signal willingness to cooperate with business partners, engage in good communication and propose concrete solutions’.
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.
Due diligence should be deeply embedded into the companies’ values and risk management should be under the management and the board/management accountability, but directors should only be liable if no risk management processes were properly implemented.
The entity indicates that ‘The BME supports that management should play a more prominent role in: the responsibility to comply with due diligence is applied. Due diligence should become an integral part of company values’. It ‘welcomes the fact that risk management and the legitimacy of measures should be strengthened and accountable by the management and in particular the board/management’. Finally, ‘Responsibility for due diligence should be transferred to directors in accordance with the international due diligence frameworks. In order to ensure that this general obligation is consistent in the Member States’.
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.
The Company acknowledges compensation claims may arise and advocates for corrective action plans and proactive engagement with affected parties in remedying
The Company states that 'The measures and benchmarks referred to in Article 8 to remedy the situation are the same as those referred to in Article 7. However, companies must also take into account that, where appropriate, claims for compensation from persons or financial compensation claims from affected communities could be addressed to the companies. In order to address this, corrective action plans should be drawn up at an early stage. To this end, the BME recommends proactively seeking discussions with the parties concerned and agreeing the corrective measures together. The company’s active communication with its business partners is a key key factor in due diligence management'.
Require companies to exert leverage on and/or provide support to their counterparties in the remediation of human rights impacts that are linked to company activities through their business relationships (e.g their value chains).
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 supports sustained cooperation with partners, avoiding disengagement.
Article 8 requires Member States to ensure that undertakings take appropriate measures to remedy any actual negative impact on human rights and the environment which they have identified or could have identified in accordance with Article 6. … The BME considers essential the Commission’s expectation that continuous cooperation with business partners should be sought rather than ending them. Otherwise, demolition could exacerbate negative effects. Withdrawal should be a last resort in line with the Union’s zero tolerance policy towards child labour. … This should therefore be taken into account when deciding on appropriate measures, according to the EU Commission.
Require companies to actively engage, consult and involve rights-holders at all stages of the remediation process.
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 supports engaging affected stakeholders in designing remediation measures.
In the context of remediation, the Company states that 'corrective action plans should be drawn up at an early stage. To this end, the BME recommends proactively seeking discussions with the parties concerned and agreeing the corrective measures together. The company’s active communication with its business partners is a key key factor in due diligence management'.
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.
It argues that there should not be liability when a wrongdoing cannot be remedied, and that assessment of liability should take effort into account. Directors should not be held liable if risk management processes and the other measures were implemented.
The entity indicates that ‘There is no liability for the wrongdoing as such if it can be established and cannot be remedied. Directors are liable only if no risk management processes and the other measures required by the EU Directive have been implemented. The BME supports this approach. ... It is welcome that the examination and assessment of a liability case takes full and due account of the undertaking’s previous efforts’.
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.
It favours limiting due diligence obligations to its own activities, its subsidiaries and its direct suppliers.
Regarding the concept of value chain, the entity indicates that ‘The concept of value chain is very broad in the EU Directive. ... It also includes both upstream and downstream established direct and indirect business relationships. ... From the BME’s point of view, it would be more appropriate to apply due diligence obligations to the critical core processes in the value chain’. It adds: ‘the audit of the value chain in both directions, from the supplier or customer side, and through the activities of the business partners, also to indirect contacts (established business relationship), goes far too far and is not feasible. SMEs do not have the power to influence the deeper supply chain or even their customers. The scope of the Directive must be limited to the activities which an undertaking may also control, namely those of its own undertaking, its subsidiaries and its direct suppliers. Everything else is unrealistic because of the lack of influence’.
Require that companies implement contract clauses and Code of Conduct with business partners clarifying obligations to avoid and to address human rights 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.
It supports due diligence in supplier relations and contractual clauses as a tool for enforcing human rights standards in business relationships.
In the context of the incorporation of due diligence into corporate policy, it notes ‘As awareness of sustainability is increasing, the agreement on due diligence in supplier relations is supported. ... From the BME’s point of view, the contracting authority’s requirements on due diligence should be decisive for suppliers. Suppliers must confirm compliance with the Code of Conduct or provide feedback via a standardised questionnaire on which requirements they cannot meet’.
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 management should communicate infringement along value chain and risk management should be under the management and the board/management accountability.
It indicates: ‘It is considered important that management should raise awareness among business employees as to whether there are actual indications (substantiated knowledge) of infringements along the value chain. These should be reported’. It ‘welcomes the fact that risk management and the legitimacy of measures should be strengthened and accountable by the management and in particular the board/management’.
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Trade Association | Performance band |
|---|---|
| Amfori | B- |