E. ON

The entity appears overall supportive of a mandatory HRDD legislation. However, it is not proactively calling for it.

The entity indicates that it considers 'an EU legal framework is needed. We support a regulation that harmonizes country specific laws, contributes effectively to a more sustainable development, including in non-EU countries, and will therefore level the playing field and increase legal certainty about how companies should tackle their impacts, including in their value chain. In our opinion this can be reached by a an EU legal framework rather than by individual national legislation. Such an EU framework should also establish rules for non-European companies that conduct business within the EU to ensure fair competition (similar to the General Data Protection Regulation GDPR). We highly recommend that the human rights due diligence should be risk-based and should call for reasonable effort, in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.' Question 14: ... Topics: There needs to be a clear definition which topics are to be addressed within a company’s due diligence duty. In the text provided above, this scope is too broad (e.g. by referring to health and environmental impact). Issues related to health, environmental impact, and climate change should only be included when they have a clear link to human rights issues as foreseen by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. ... Foreseeable impacts: Referring to the statement “(…) impacts the company is possibly causing, contributing to or should foresee” in the above definition, we would like to stress that the term “foreseeability” cannot be easily applied in practice – companies can only implement actions depending on risks of adverse impacts that can be reasonably foreseen by a company. Question 15: Option 2. “Minimum process and definitions approach”: The EU should define a minimum set of requirements with regard to the necessary processes (see in option 1) which should be applicable across all sectors. Furthermore, this approach would provide harmonised definitions for example as regards the coverage of adverse impacts that should be the subject of the due diligence obligation and could rely on EU and international human rights conventions, including ILO labour conventions, or other conventions, where relevant. Minimum requirements could be complemented by sector specific guidance or further rules, where necessary.15b: Furthermore, a clear list of human rights issues that are in scope of such a legislation would be a requirement to make such a legislation successful in practice. Risks related to environmental and climate-related issues should be included when they have a clear link to human rights issues as foreseen by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The legal framework would need to clearly define when a company has fulfilled all its obligations, e.g. through a safe harbor concept. Such a safe harbor concept should be the result of a multi-stakeholder industry dialogue. Furthermore, we would like to stress that the primary duty to protect human rights lays with states – therefore, a regulation on human rights due diligence for companies should be accompanied by public sector measures to improve the human rights situation, especially in developing countries.

The entity appears to support general coverage with sector specific guidance.

Question 15: Option 2. “Minimum process and definitions approach”: The EU should define a minimum set of requirements with regard to the necessary processes (see in option 1) which should be applicable across all sectors. Furthermore, this approach would provide harmonised definitions for example as regards the coverage of adverse impacts that should be the subject of the due diligence obligation and could rely on EU and international human rights conventions, including ILO labour conventions, or other conventions, where relevant. Minimum requirements could be complemented by sector specific guidance or further rules, where necessary. Question 15b: ... Minimum requirements should be based on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. These requirements will need to be complemented by sector-specific guidance. ...Question 17: Yes. Question 17a: It should apply to all companies that trade goods or services in the EU. Potentially, trade agreements could be used to facilitate this. Question 17b: In order to enhance fair competition, the same obligations as for EU companies should apply to non-EU companies that trade goods or services within the EU. Question 2: ... Such an EU framework should also establish rules for non-European companies that conduct business within the EU to ensure fair competition (similar to the General Data Protection Regulation GDPR). ...

The entity appears to state that no mandatory regulation is necessary and that existing voluntary measures are sufficient.

Question 6: Disagree to some extent. The aspects mentioned above are important and essential for the good and long-term governance of a company and its business success and therefore at the core interest of the directors, but we do not see a need that this should be required by law. Question 7: I disagree to some extent. Again, we believe that the aspects mentioned above are important but we do not see a need for a regulation by law. The aspects have been already addressed in various pieces of regulation with regard to a company’s responsibility, as for example the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD). Adding further topics to director’s duties increases the complexity of a company’s management unnecessarily and thus should not be required by law.

The entity appears to oppose a mandatory legislation in this context.

Question 20a: I disagree to some extent. As described earlier, we believe it should be in a company’s own responsibility and choice to decide which mechanisms or channels it uses to engage with stakeholders to be able to interact in the best possible way and regulation by law would hinder the flexibility and is not required.

The entity appears not supportive of comprehensive civil liability but does not oppose the introduction of civil liability in general.

Question 3a, On the risk of disengagement from markets with a high risk for human rights violations, we would like to point out that this risk may especially be significant in case of a comprehensive clause on civil liability. Comprehensive liability might negatively affect companies that engage in risky markets and aim to improve the human rights situation when they fear to be prone to lawsuits at the same time. Civil liability must therefore always consider both the impact of companies on human rights as well as an appropriate balance of measures to minimize potential human rights impacts. Human rights related due diligence should always be risk-based and should call for reasonable effort, in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Due performance of the obligations should consequently limit civil liability. ...

The entity appears to not support coverage of the value chain beyond the first tier. It further requests clarifications of some of the concepts introduced by the EU commission.

Question 3a A critical point for a manageable EU due diligence duty is the scope of such a legislation. Monitoring several thousand suppliers and all their sub suppliers would be a bureaucratic challenge, a clearly defined risk-based scope would free resources for high-risk suppliers. Companies only have an economic and legal impact on their direct suppliers (Tier 1), and in some cases even this impact has limitations. In our experience monitoring of suppliers beyond Tier 1 becomes increasingly difficult as many suppliers fear to be bypassed and do not share all information required. We have only limited influence and therefore limited information on suppliers beyond Tier 1.Question 14: Scope of the “supply chain”: Companies only have an economic and legal impact on their direct suppliers (Tier 1). Beyond Tier 1, there is only limited influence and information on suppliers available. The ability to monitor and track suppliers beyond Tier 1 is difficult due to the complexity and lack of transparency of supplier networks. Also, the term “business relationships” is not a clear definition but rather a very broad term as this includes other companies and sub-contractors who might not disclose information due to competition reasons. Furthermore, it would need to be clarified whether these relationships also include other actors in the supply chain such as own operations of a company, clients, and joint ventures.

It is unclear whether the company is supporting or opposing a general legal requirement for stakeholder engagement.

The company indicates: 'I do not know/I do not take position' for all options provided under question 5. When prompted to specify, it states: "Our long-term business success depends to a large degree on our ability to understand and address our stakeholders' expectations. Stakeholder management is a core process of our corporate governance. We believe that stakeholders’ interests are generally relevant to the long-term performance and resilience of a company and thus should be considered in directors’ decisions. We consider all relevant stakeholders generally as equally relevant. The type of dialogue we choose varies by stakeholder and issue. It ranges from information campaigns and discussion forums with trade associations and NGOs to face-to-face discussions and public advocacy. Depending on the industry, the location, the context, the type of business decision or topic, however, it might vary which stakeholder group’s interest are most relevant at a certain time. In our view, it is thus important for a company to have the flexibility to decide in which case it involves which stakeholder groups, in which order and how. In our experience, successful stakeholder involvement cannot be designed in a one-size-fits-all approach but should be tailored to the specific needs of the stakeholder groups."

The entity appears to state that legislation is not necessary.

Question 20a: I disagree to some extent. Please explain: "As described earlier, we believe it should be in a company’s own responsibility and choice to decide which mechanisms or channels it uses to engage with stakeholders to be able to interact in the best possible way and regulation by law would hinder the flexibility and is not required."

The entity appears to oppose a mandatory legislation of this issue.

Question 6: the company indicates 'I disagree to some extent' regarding all options provided.Please explain 1.: The aspects mentioned above are important and essential for the good and long-term governance of a company and its business success and therefore at the core interest of the directors, but we do not see a need that this should be required by law.Question 7: I disagree to some extentPlease explain 2: Again, we believe that the aspects mentioned above are important but we do not see a need for a regulation by law. The aspects have been already addressed in various pieces of regulation with regard to a company’s responsibility, as for example the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD). Adding further topics to director’s duties increases the complexity of a company’s management unnecessarily and thus should not be required by law.