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 that a legal framework is needed and agrees with the definition of due diligence.
In response to question 2, the entity states that an EU legal framework is needed. The entity supports the principles and standards for responsible business conduct set out in several international instruments including the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: ‘However, we think that the call for responsible business conduct could be further reinforced. We believe that to help ensure that companies apply internationally agreed responsible business principles and create level playing field between companies in the EU in this respect, a common legal framework based on those principles would be helpful.’
In response to question 14, the entity acknowledges that: ‘The proposed definition seems sensible, covering all sizes of companies and all kinds of industries and taking a risk-based and proportionate approach.’ The entity emphasises that the future definition, when adopted, should be broad enough to also cover environmental issues other than climate change, as well as the concept of materiality, and be compatible with related concepts present in existing EU legislation.
In response to question 15, the entity chooses option 1 ‘principles-based approach’, states that ‘a general due diligence duty based on key process requirements… should be defined at EU level. These should be applicable across all sectors.’
In response to question 17, the entity agrees that the due diligence rules should be applied to certain third countries.
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 is in favour of ‘principal-based approach’ to the due diligence duty and agrees that, ‘SMEs should be excluded with some exceptions; SMEs should be subject to lighter requirements (“principles-based” or “minimum process and definitions” approaches as indicated in Question 15)’.
In response to question 15, the entity chooses option 1, ‘principles-based approach’, states that, ‘A general due diligence duty based on key process requirements… should be defined at EU level. These should be applicable across all sectors.’
In response to question 16, the entity considers that SMEs ‘should be encouraged to adopt good practices in the field of due diligence that are effective and also proportionate to their size, nature and industry.’
In response to question 17, the entity agrees that the due diligence rules should be applied to certain third countries.
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 does not take a position on corporate directors’ legal duty for identifying stakeholders and interests. The entity disagrees to some extent with corporate directors’ legal duty to set up procedures to identify risks and adverse impacts on stakeholders. The entity also disagrees with corporate directors legal duty to balance the interests of all stakeholders.
In response to question 6, the entity does not take any positions and considers that today’s corporate directors’ duty of care would already take into consideration stakeholders’ interests and thinks there is no additional mandatory corporate law provisions that needs to be imposed. In response to question 7, the entity acknowledges the targets mentioned in question 7; however, the entity does not think that, ‘EU or national corporate law should require directors to set-up these (additional) procedures and targets.’ Furthermore, the entity strongly suggests not to use the word ‘prevent‘, but to replace it with ‘mitigate’.
In response to question 8, the entity considers that, ‘the notions of corporate interest and duty of care are sufficiently broad and we do not see the need to specify in corporate law provisions that corporate directors should balance the interest of all stakeholders.’ The entity suggests using some high-level principles and soft law tools, such as EC recommendations and/or national corporate governance codes, etc.
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.
The entity disagrees to some extent with the requirements for directors to establish consultation mechanisms for stakeholders.
In response to question 20a, the entity states that: ‘EU requirements would, in our view, not be appropriate as company law and culture differs across the member states. However, we strongly support the principle of a company engaging with stakeholders.’ The entity has not responded to question 20c.
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 considers that a legal framework is needed and agrees to the definition of due diligence.
In response to question 2, the entity states that an EU legal framework is needed. The entity supports the principles and standards for responsible business conduct set out in several international instruments including the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. ‘However, we think that the call for responsible business conduct could be further reinforced. We believe that to help ensure that companies apply internationally agreed responsible business principles and create level playing field between companies in the EU in this respect, a common legal framework based on those principles would be helpful.’
In response to question 3, the entity picks up the option 1, 3, 6, and 7, stating that: ‘Ensuring that the company is aware of its adverse human rights, social and environmental impacts and risks related to human rights violations other social issues and the environment and that it is in a better position to mitigate these risks and impacts; Levelling the playing field, avoiding that some companies freeride on the efforts of others; Harmonisation to avoid fragmentation in the EU, as emerging national laws are different; SMEs would have better chances to be part of EU supply chains.’ In response to question 14, the entity acknowledges that ‘The proposed definition seems sensible, covering all sizes of companies and all kinds of industries and taking a risk-based and proportionate approach.’ The entity emphasises that the future definition, when adopted, should be broad enough to also cover environmental issues other than climate change, as well as the concept of materiality, and be compatible with related concepts present in existing EU legislation.
In response to question 15, the entity picks up option 1 ‘principles-based approach’, stating that: ‘A general due diligence duty based on key process requirements… should be defined at EU level. These should be applicable across all sectors.’
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 seems not to support mandatory requirements for director’s duty and considers that the concept of ‘stakeholder’ should focus on the primary impacts of the company’s activity on stakeholders rather than stakeholders’ interests.
In response to question 6, the entity considers that today’s corporate directors’ duty of care would already take into consideration stakeholders’ interests and thinks there is no additional mandatory corporate law provisions to be imposed. The entity suggests using the revised Non-Financial Reporting Directive to create reporting obligations and limit the scope of application, rather than mandatory requirements. Regarding the concept of ‘stakeholders’, the entity considers that it is, ‘quite broad and encompassing groups of individuals that may have diverging interests, we would suggest to the EC to focus primarily on the impacts of the company’s activity (be they social, environmental, societal, ...) on stakeholders rather than stakeholders’ interests taken as a whole.'
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 entity disagrees to some extent with the requirements for directors to establish consultation mechanisms for stakeholders.
In response to question 20a, the entity states that: ‘EU requirements would, in our view, not be appropriate as company law and culture differs across the member states. However, we strongly support the principle of a company engaging with stakeholders.’ The entity has not responded to question 20c.
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 entity does not take a position on corporate directors’ legal duty for identifying stakeholders and their interests.
In response to question 6, the entity does not take positions and considers that today’s corporate directors’ duty of care would already take into consideration stakeholders’ interests, and thinks there is no additional mandatory corporate law provisions to be imposed.
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 entity does not take a position on corporate directors’ legal duty for identifying stakeholders and interests. The entity disagrees to some extent with corporate directors’ legal duty to set up procedures to identify risks and adverse impacts on stakeholders.
In response to question 6, the entity does not take any positions and considers that today’s corporate directors’ duty of care would already take into consideration stakeholders’ interests and thinks there is no additional mandatory corporate law provisions to be imposed.
In response to question 7, the entity acknowledges the targets mentioned in question 7; however, the entity does not think that: ‘EU or national corporate law should require directors to set-up these (additional) procedures and targets.’ Furthermore, the entity strongly suggests not to use the word ‘prevent‘, but to replace it with ‘mitigate’.
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|