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.
In favour of a legal framework and legislation based on a minimum process and definitions as asked in consultation without further details.
The Company agrees that EU legislation is needed for supply chain due diligence to address adverse impacts on human rights. It also agrees with the definition of DDD provided by the consultation and is in favour of a: "minimum process and definitions approach ... complemented with further requirements in particular for environmental issues".
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.
In favour of including all companies and sectors, even if SMEs have help and are subject to lighter requirements.
The Company is in favour of an horizontal approach (covering all sectors), and all companies; however, SMEs should be subject to lighter requirements, including funding, capacity building support, non-binding guidelines for the needs of SMEs in particular and toolbox or national helpdesk.
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.
In favour of supervision by national authorities with a coordination mechanism.
To Question 19a: the Company answers that is in favour of: "Supervision by competent national authorities (option 2) with a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination to ensure consistency throughout the EU"
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 Company's response is ambiguous.
The Company agrees "to some extent" that corporate directors should be require to "manage the risks for the company in relation to stakeholders and their interests" and that: "corporate directors should be required by law to set up adequate procedures and, where relevant, measurable ... targets to ensure possible risks ... are identified, prevented and addressed". However, when explaining its position in relation to the latter, it states that: 'in addition to our board members, all teammates in Decathlon are committed and engaged to include due diligence in their daily job through indicators and data. We would welcome the Commission efforts to harmonize such measurable targets". Hence, the Company is not clarifying whether it agrees that duties of corporate directors should be required by law to avoid human rights impacts.
Require companies to provide grievance mechanisms for all stakeholders including those in the value chain.
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 company agrees 'to some extent' with requiring mechanisms for stakeholder consultation as part of the due diligence duty, it considers complaint mechanisms to be best practice and does not support making them mandatory.
The Company agrees 'to some extent' with a requirement (for directors) to establish mechanisms for engaging in stakeholder consultation as part of due diligence duty (question 20a). It then states that, 'we already have this kind of channel, we would appreciate if the Commission could provide guidelines' and clarify that: 'our channels are open to everyone'. However, it only considers a grievance mechanism being part of due diligence as 'best practice'.
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 Company is in favour of applying due diligence duty, including to the supply chain. It does not refer, to the whole value chain, including downstream.
The Company agrees (question 14) with the definition of due diligence duty provided in the consultation, adding that: "we should engage the tiers in the sustainbility due diligence". It is also in favour, as per response to question 15, in a "minimum process and definitions approach ... complemented with further requirements, in particular for environmental issues". It is not clear, however, if they are in favour of applying this criteria downstream, and remediating impacts, as it is not asked by the consultation questionnaire, and the Company does not refer to it either.
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 Company disagrees with question 6, which includes a legal requirement to identify stakeholders.
In response to question 5 the Company considers all stakeholders presented as relevant. However, the entity disagrees 'to some extent' with question 6, which asks about a legal requirement for corporate directors to: 'identify the Company's stakeholders and their interests'. Then it states that: 'stakeholders engagement has been part of our company policy for years. We believe this area needs to be agile and to adapt to our company transformation, and also the continuous changing external context'.
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 agrees 'to some extent' to this question. However, it is not clear what their actual position is, indicating that it already has a channel like this.
Question 20a directly asks the question required by the indicator, to which the company agrees "to some extent". The explanation, however, does not clarify which aspects it agrees with and what reservations it may have, indicating that 'we already have this kind of channel'. Having a channel does not necessarily imply that their is director responsibility on this matter.
Require that action plans are developed in consultation with affected 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 consultation doesn't ask about this and the Company's explanations don't refer to these aspects.
Although the Company responds that it already has, "this kind of channel," referring to a mechanism for stakeholder engagement to ensure inclusion in company's due diligence process; it does not clarify whether it is in favour of stakeholders participating in the actual risk & impact action plans.
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 Company agrees "to some extent" when directly asked about this. No further comment.
The Company agrees "to some extent" when directly asked about this. No further comment was given, including as to whether this should be a requirement for corporate directors.
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Industry Association | Performance band |
|---|---|
| EuroCommerce | E+ |
