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.
Danone denies any affiliation to the Evian Letter and does not support the abolition of the CSDDD
"Thank you for reaching out and inquiring about this letter arising from a recent meeting. I can confirm that Danone did not take part in drafting or signing the letter, and therefore, it should not reflect any consensus on the topic. And per your question below, I can also confirm that Danone does not support the abolition of CSDDD and remains committed to the intent of it. Thank you again for inquiring and ensuring clarity on this matter."
This joint statement signed by the CEOs of TotalEnergies SE and Siemens AG calls for the abolition of the CSDDD on behalf of the entities attending the 2025 Evian conference which includes this entity. There is no evidence of the entity stating support for the statement, it is added for clarification but the assessment is not part of the organisational score for this entity.
"CEOs call for the full abolishment of CS3D as a clear and symbolic signal to European and international companies that the governments and the Commission are really engaged to restore competitiveness in Europe."
The entities welcome the directive and urges EU legislators to support it
The statement includes the following '“The CSDDD is substantially aligned with the international standards on Responsible Business Conduct. This makes it credible and its implementation manageable.” “At the same time, it is ground-breaking as it makes due diligence mandatory for companies that are in scope across the EU.” “We support the CSDDD and call on European decision-makers to do so as well.'
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…”
Requiring Human rights due diligence of all companies, regardless of sector and size, while still reflecting their individual circumstances.
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…”
Implementing an enforcement mechanism where companies fail to carry out due diligence as described.
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…”
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.
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"
Require that companies implement contract clauses and Code of Conduct with business partners clarifying obligations to avoid and to address human rights harms.
The statement warns against excessive reliance on contractual clauses, favouring collaboration-based approaches instead.
“...rather than top-down policing through an overreliance on contracts and audits. Such an approach simply shifts responsibility...”
Require that human rights risks and impacts should be assessed through dialogue with stakeholder or with their legitimate representatives.
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."
| Legislation | Position |
|---|---|
| EU CSDDD | Supporting |
| Omnibus | Not Supporting |
| Trade Association | Performance band |
|---|---|
| CSR Europe | C+ |
| FoodDrink Europe | C |
| Association Nationale des Sociétés par Actions (ANSA) | E |
| AFEP | E- |