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 appears to suggest caveats to the level of risk that needs to be addressed according to the proposal. It seems to suggest to limit the scope of risks covered.The entity further appears to question the applicability of international human rights instruments to non-state actors.
"Not all environmental and human rights risks posed by an activity are of the same nature or intensity and therefore cannot be treated in the same way. It is therefore imperative for effective implementation that companies are required to address risks that have a certain level of severity....Article 4 of the draft Directive uses the notion of “potential” or “actual” impact, without further specification of any degree of seriousness of the risk of harm that must be caused. The notion of severe adverse impact is only used in Article 7.5.b) and justifies the termination of an established commercial relationship. We believe that a more proportionate understanding of the scope of the duty of care for companies is essential to ensure a robust approach to identify i) the risks of human rights and environmental abuses and ii) the necessary preventive and/or mitigating measures. ... It appears relevant to clarify in Article 4.b) of the draft directive that the adverse impacts that companies must identify, prevent, and mitigate are those that have a certain degree of seriousness, as required under French law in Article L.225-104 of the Commercial Code. The concept of “severe adverse impact” used in Articles 7.5 and 8.6 to require undertakings to terminate an established business relationship should therefore also be adjusted.... The reference framework referred to in the directive is, however, mainly derived from international instruments which have direct effect only for the signatory states. ... We propose without limiting the role of companies in the protection of human rights and the environment, to clarify the wording of the draft directive in order to insert a sentence underlining and reaffirming that if companies are subject to a duty of care, it is the States, that are signatories to instruments for the protection of human rights and the environment, that are primarily responsible for ensuring their implementation and guaranteeing them."
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 supports a mandatory HRDD legislation. However, the statement does not show proactive calls for legislation
Question 2: "Yes, an EU legal framework is needed." Please explain: "There is a need for a global level paying field and harmonisation of practices in the EU (and beyond)." Question 14: "EDF agrees in substance with the definition of duty of diligence but it should be made clear that it applies to serious impacts to human rights, health and safety and environment." 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.
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 appears to suggest a caveat for subsidiaries.
"There is no exemption for subsidiaries whose parent companies are subject to the requirements of this text. As long as the governance arrangements put in place by the parent company ensure their application within the subsidiaries, such an exemption is reasonable and useful to avoid any excessive administrative burden. ... We propose to provide an exemption for subsidiaries whose parent companies are subject to the requirements of this text."
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 appears to support this. However, the statement does not portray a proactive call for legislation.
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 15a: EDF is not in favor of a thematic or a sector wide approach at this stage. Question 15b: Minimum process requirements and definition approach is a good start and will provide some legal certainty. Companies should be associated in the preparation of guidelines. The content of the duty of diligence itself depends very much on the company's activity, structure and location. Question 16: SMEs should have lighter reporting requirements; Due diligence rules should apply to all companies but with lighter minimum requirements for SME. Question 17: Yes
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.
The entity appears to not support some aspects of the proposed enforcement mechanisms.
"It seems important to us in view of the multiplicity of sanctions proposed by the directive to properly regulate the cumulation of sanctions attributable to an undertaking. Such penalties should be proportionate to the fault committed. It will also be essential to avoid two national agencies sanctioning the same undertaking for the same infringement. Similarly, it will be imperative that the sanctioning regime be harmonized between the European agencies in order to ensure the functioning of the internal market. Furthermore, we consider that the prohibition of a wrongful undertaking from receiving public aid is inappropriate. This double penalty would not take into account the efforts made by the company to prevent and remedy the adverse impacts of its activity. We therefore propose to delete Article 24."
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 states support for an enforcement mechanism. However, the statement does not demonstrate a proactive call for legislation.
Question 19a: 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 statement does not convey a clear position.
"The proposed Directive places requirements on ‘directors’, but this concept does not distinguish between directors and officers/management of the company. It is therefore essential that Member States have the possibility to allocate the different duties relating to due diligence to the relevant bodies of the company. ...The directive does not distinguish between directors and executive officers/management of the company. It seems important to us to recall that the directors determine the general orientations of the company's activity, while the executive officers implement them. It is therefore essential that Member States have the possibility of allocating these different tasks to the relevant bodies of the undertaking."
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 appears to not support this requirement.
Question 6: The company replies 'I strongly agree' to sub-questions (1) and (2). For sub-question (3) it replies 'I do not know 'Please explain: It is the company's task to identify relevant stakeholders and manage related identified serious risks. "Identification of the opportunities arising from promoting stakeholders' interests" needs further explanation. Question 7: I agree to some extent. Please explain: Minimum requirements (procedures) should mainly be imposed on the company and not on corporate directors as they are not in charge of the management of the company. Procedures put in place by French law on corporate duty of vigilance are appropriate (vigilance plan includes risk mapping, tailored actions to mitigate risks and prevent severe impacts, monitoring of measures....).
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 appears to request clarification of the requirement, in particular in relation to other existing legislation.
"It is necessary to ensure that this complaint mechanism is linked to the provisions on whistleblowers. As the complaint mechanism is close and partially redundant to the internal whistleblowing mechanism, this can lead to confusion about the status of the whistleblower which is reserved for natural persons in Directive 2019/1937 unlike the status of the complainant which can be a natural or legal person in this Directive. It will be necessary to ensure a better articulation of these two principles."
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 support the legal requirement as set out in the consultation.
Question 20a: I disagree to some extent. Please explain: It is to each company to identify its most relevant, representative and credible stakeholders internally and externally, which will take part in the process (risk mapping) and in what terms.
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 entity does not indicate support for civil liability
Question 19a: Supervision by competent national authorities (option 2) with a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination to ensure consistency throughout the EU
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 suggests both limiting the coverage to the upstream value chain and limiting this to tier 1 business relationships only.
"The original aim of the scheme is to change business practices by imposing obligations on companies, including on their subsidiaries and supply chain. Extending these requirements to customers goes beyond the initial framework but, above all, makes the mechanism particularly fragile by fundamentally distorting the contractual relationship. Furthermore, and in line with the OECD Guidelines, it is not reasonable to impose requirements beyond the rank 1 in the supply chain. ...Unlike French law, the proposal would lead companies subject to the scheme to set up diligences on upstream and downstream activities, moreover going beyond the rank 1. However, the difficulty of tracing the availability and use of products and services in the downstream value chain appears particularly delicate for reasons relating in particular to the protection of trade secrets and the profound imbalance in customer relations. Similarly, beyond rank 1 of the supply chain, as mentioned by the OECD Guidelines, "that there are practical limitations on the ability of enterprises to effect change in the behaviour of their suppliers. These are related to product characteristics, the number of suppliers, the structure and complexity of the supply chain, the market position of the enterprise vis-à-vis its suppliers or other entities in the supply chain.” EDF therefore proposes to limit the duty of care, on the one hand, to the upstream value chain and, on the other hand, to rank 1.
Require that companies implement contract clauses and Code of Conduct with business partners clarifying obligations to avoid and to address human rights 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 is suggesting caveats to the proposed provisions.
"The directive requires companies subject to the duty of care to endeavor to obtain contractual guarantees from their partners, including indirect partners (cf. point 5), but obtaining such guarantees (contractual cascade) does not make it possible to guarantee the absence of risk of adverse impacts and does not exonerate the company from all responsibility for the possible impacts of its entire value chain. The proposed directive provides for the obligation for the company to suspend or even terminate a business relationship without stressing that this measure should only be considered as a last resort, which does not respond to the logic that should be the basis for vigilance. Indeed, it should be explicit that these measures are the solution of last resort, only after warning or after formal notice measures have been implemented. ... Considering the impossibility for undertakings to avoid any risk of adverse impact in its value chain despite obtaining contractual guarantees with its partners, it would be appropriate to amend the wording of Articles 7.5 and 8.6 in order to make it clear that the suspension or termination of a contractual relationship should only occur as a last resort. It could be provided that such suspension or termination of the contractual relationship should only take place after the defaulting partner has been given unsuccessful notice."
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 appears supportive. However, the statement does not represent a proactive call for legislation.
Question 5: the company considers all suggested interests as relevant with the exception of society and other interests where is states 'I do not take position'Question 6: The company replies 'I strongly agree' to sub-questions (1) and (2), and 'I do not know' to sub-question (3)Please explain: It is the company's task to identify relevant stakeholders and manage related identified serious risks. "Identification of the opportunities arising from promoting stakeholders' interests" needs further explanation.
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 appears to not support this requirement
Question 20a: I disagree to some extent. It is to each company to identify its must relevant, representative and credible stakeholders internally and externally, which will take part in the process (risk mapping) and in what terms.
Require that human rights risks and impacts should be assessed through dialogue with stakeholder or with their legitimate representatives.
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 appears to oppose the requirement to consult all relevant stakeholders.
"The choice of stakeholders in the consultation processes and the development of action plans and corrective action plans should remain the prerogative of companies."
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 appears to oppose the requirement to consult all affected stakeholders.
"The choice of stakeholders in the consultation processes and the development of action plans and corrective action plans should remain the prerogative of companies."
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 statement does not clearly indicate the entity's position on a duty of directors for this requirement.
Question 6: the company replies with 'I strongly agree' to sub-questions (1) and (2). To sub-question (3) it replies 'I do not know. It is the company's task to identify relevant stakeholders and manage related identified serious risks. "Identification of the opportunities arising from promoting stakeholders' interests" needs further explanation.
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Industry Association | Performance band |
|---|---|
| Association Nationale des Sociétés par Actions (ANSA) | E |
| Confindustria | F |
| Mouvement Impact France | B |
