| Legislation | Position |
|---|---|
| EU CSDDD | Not Supporting |
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 with the definition of due diligence, the entity thinks that: ‘No, it should be enough to focus on asking companies to follow existing guidelines and standards.’
In response to question 2, the entity believes, ‘there is no need to consider introducing regulatory requirements on due diligence in supply chain.’ The entity thinks that, ‘sectoral legislation in the EU already includes requirements on due diligence’, and supply chain due diligence should avoid duplication with the sectoral legislation.
The entity agrees with the definition of due diligence (question 14) and picks option 1, ‘Principles-based approach’ (question 15).
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 with the definition of due diligence, ‘Principles-based approach’, and considers SMEs should be excluded with some exceptions.
The entity agrees on the definition in question 14. In response to question 15, the entity picks option 1 ‘Principles-based approach’. In response to question 16, the entity considers ‘SMEs should be excluded with some exceptions (e.g. most risky sectors or other)’.
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 has not taken a position on directors’ legal duty to identify companies’ stakeholders and interests, and disagrees to some extent on directors’ legal duty to set up procedures in risk identification, prevention, and remedy. The entity strongly disagrees on directors’ responsibilities to balance the interests of all stakeholders.
In response to question 6, the entity has not taken a position on director’s legal duty, instead indicates that, ‘the assessment of factors relevant to stakeholders should be guided by materiality’.
In response to question 7, the entity thinks there are important constraints for setting measurable targets regarding assessing the procedures; however, clear agreement and data base is absent.
| Legislation | Position |
|---|---|
| EU CSDDD | Not Supporting |
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 on directors’ responsibility to establish and apply consultation channels for engaging with stakeholders.
In response to question 20a, the entity emphasizes that there are many existing channels for engaging with stakeholders already and suggests companies to make better use of existing channels rather than setting up new competing bodies.
| Legislation | Position |
|---|---|
| EU CSDDD | Not Supporting |
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 with the definition of due diligence, the entity thinks that, ‘it should be enough to focus on asking companies to follow existing guidelines and standards.’
In response to question 2, the entity believes, ‘there is no need to consider introducing regulatory requirements on due diligence in supply chain.’ The entity thinks that, ‘sectoral legislation in the EU already includes requirements on due diligence’ and supply chain due diligence should avoid duplication with the sectoral legislation.' The entity agrees with the definition of due diligence (question 14) and picks option 1 ‘Principles-based approach’ (question 15).
| Legislation | Position |
|---|---|
| EU CSDDD | Not Supporting |
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 has not taken a position on directors’ legal duty to identify companies’ stakeholders and their interests.
In response to question 6, the entity has not taken a position on director’s legal duty, instead indicates that ‘the assessment of factors relevant to stakeholders should be guided by materiality’.
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 on directors’ responsibility to establish and apply consultation channels for engaging with stakeholders.
In response to question 20a, the entity emphasises that there are many existing channels for engaging with stakeholders already and suggests companies to better make use of existing channels rather than setting up new competing bodies.
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 has not taken a position on directors’ legal duty to identify companies’ stakeholders and interests and disagrees to some extent on directors’ legal duty to set up procedures in risk identification, prevention, and addressment.
In response to question 6, the entity indicates that, ‘the assessment of factors relevant to stakeholders should be guided by materiality’.
In response to question 7, the entity thinks there are important constraints for setting measurable targets regarding assessing procedures; however, clear agreement and data base is absent.
| Legislation | Position |
|---|---|
| EU CSDDD | Not Supporting |
| Trade Association | Performance band |
|---|---|
| Assogestioni | E- |