Fair Wear Foundation

The entities are in favour of mandatory due diligence on human rights.

The entities state: 'In favour of mandatory due diligence on human rights. As Fair Wear and the Ethial Trading Initiative (ETI), we envision a global garment industry that contributes to an equal and just society by respecting human rights in the world of work'.

The entity considers that a legal framework is needed on due diligence and agrees with the consultation definition of DDD and advocates for strong standards.

The entity is in favour of legal framework on due diligence. It states that: 'Focusing on solely voluntary regulation for responsible business conduct has shown to be insufficiently effective, and typically lacking the required leverage to achieve the necessary social and environmental changes'. It also, 'largely' agrees with the DDD definition of the consultation adding that it: 'would like to stress that due diligence is a continuous process including its preventive, risk-based and contextual nature'.

The letter expresses direct and repeated support for the approval of the CSDDD, praising the balance achieved in the political agreement and its alignment with international standards. The signatories also express concern about the risk of the directive being rejected at this final stage.

The statement indicates: “The political compromise on the CSDDD from December last year is based on the UN and OECD standards and thus builds on guidelines that responsible companies have been using as a reference for years. In our view, the requirements of the CSDDD are appropriate and feasible.” “We are very concerned that German support for the CSDDD could still be withdrawn in the final approval process.” “We expect Chancellor Olaf Scholz to secure this democratically achieved compromise and thereby provide companies with legal certainty and fair competitive conditions.”

The position paper is strongly in favour of including all SMEs under the due diligence directive.

It states that: 'we take the view that all SMEs should fall under a practicable, proportionate, and effective corporate due diligence directive'. It adds that: 'at least 90% of all companies in the EU garment and textile industry are Small Sized Enterprises with less than 50 employees and a share of 60% in the sector's total annual turnover ... Without the inclusion of SMEs, a significant system change of the garment and textile sector cannot be achieved.'

The entity advocates for mandatory due diligence for all companies regardless of sector and size.

The entity indicates that international standards such as the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines for MNEs: 'confirm that companies of all sizes have obligations to conduct due diligence. These requirements should not be lighter for SMEs as a group, the duty should be proportionate to the size and resources of the company. Due diligence must first and foremost be determined by the risks and harms; not to the enterprise itself, but to human rights and the environment.'

The entity advocates for judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling due diligence obligations, and supervision by competent national authorities with a mechanisms of cooperation to ensure consistency.

The entity advocates for judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling due diligence obligations. It adds that: 'to have effective legislation, all the options should be considered. Simply conducting due diligence should not absolve a company from liability. Companies should be liable for the damages that they could have prevented by conducting an effective, credible and thorough due diligence process'.

The joint statement shows support both for administrative enforcement and civil liability

The joint statement indicates that 'This common standard should be effectively enforced, recognising the need for a balanced combination of administrative enforcement and civil liability, as well as access to justice measures'.

Although this is not directly asked, the entity does not have a position on whether there should be a specific legal duty on individual company directors to set up procedures to ensure that risks and impacts on stakeholders are identified, prevented and addressed.

The entity indicates that: 'all companies should be required by law to set up adequate procedures and, where relevant, measurable targets to ensure that possible risks to, and adverse impacts on, stakeholders are identified, prevented or mitigated. This ill be most effective if the relevant actions are led by staff at director-level ... Fair Wear does not have a position on whether there should be a specific legal duty on individual company directors.'

The entity advocates, among other mechanisms, for judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence obligations.

In response to question on enforcement mechanisms to make DDD effective, the entity advocates for judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused, and supervision by competent national authorities with a mechanism of EU coordination. It also adds that: 'Remedy should go beyond monetary compensation to victims and should also include addressing the practices that created the impact in the first place'.

Although the entity doesn't consider that complaint mechanisms being part of due diligence should be promoted at the EU level (it considers it best practice), it explicitly advocates for a consultation process with stakeholders throughout all stages of the due diligence process.

Although the entity doesn't consider that complaint mechanisms being part of due diligence should be promoted at the EU level (it considers it best practice), it explicitly advocates for consultation process with stakeholders: 'Stakeholder engagement must be done throughout all stages of the due diligence process. It should also be integrated into remediation processes and efforts to compensate for damage and/or loss'.

Although not directly asked by the consultation, the entity explicitly advocates for engagement throughout all stages of the due diligence process.

The entity states that: 'we believe it is crucial that businesses should effectively consult a wide range of stakeholders. Stakeholder engagement must be done throughout all stages of the due diligence process. It should also be integrated into remediation processes and efforts to compensate for damage and/or loss. To ensure that this is meaningful, these processes must involve all relevant stakeholders, in particularly workers or their representatives'.

The entity advocates, for judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence obligation and elaborates on it.

In response to question on enforcement mechanisms to make DDD effective, the entity advocates for judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused, and supervision by competent national authorities with a mechanism of EU coordination. It also adds that: 'Remedy should go beyond monetary compensation to victims and should also include addressing the practices that created the impact in the first place.'

Although not directly asked, the Company indirectly refers to this matter. It's response is not clear as to whether it is in favour of the requirements of this indicator, as it points out that in some cases affected workers' are left without full remediation.

The entity states that based on its experience from its complaints and remedy mechanisms: 'we have come across cases in which a company took its responsibility with respect to labour rights violations which had taken place at its supply chain partner. Although in these cases the European company was not directly liable for the violation as it was not causing but linked to the issue at hand, it had the responsibility to contribute to remediate the issue (amplified by local and international stakeholders). The companies contributed directly to the remediation of affected workers. However, in many of these cases we note that other companies that also produced in the same location have not responded to take their responsibility to contribute to remediation, leaving workers of the supply chain partner without a full remediation'. The entity also highlights other issues, in addition to difficulties in getting access to justice.

The entity agrees with DDD definition given by the consultation and elaborates on it, advocating for full value chain coverage.

The entity states that: 'We largely agree but would like to stress due diligence is a continuous process including its preventive, risk-based and contextual nature. ... Due diligence should cover the company’s own operations and the entire value chain. It should apply to companies regardless of their size and across all sectors and be integrated across all business practices and decisions of the company, including for instance their purchasing practices. For the supply chains, home workers and other piecemeal workers should be part of a company’s business relationships'. As indicated in explanations above, it advocates for remedy provision.

The statement advocates for enforcing due diligence in own operations and 'value chains'.

The statements shows support for the Directive in general, and also states that 'The Directive aims to harmonise requirements for companies to carry out due diligence in their own operations, subsidiaries and value chains, thereby ensuring an EU-wide level playing field and avoiding market fragmentation. This common standard should be effectively enforced, recognising the need for a balanced combination of administrative enforcement and civil liability, as well as access to justice measures'.

The entity strongly agrees that companies should be required to identify stakeholders and their interests, and elaborates on it.

The entity strongly agrees: 'Companies should be required by law to identify the company's stakeholders and their various interests. This is an important part of any comprehensive due diligence process. Without first mapping all relevant stakeholders, a business will be unable to properly assess the risk of any adverse impacts it may cause or contribute through its operations or supply chain'.

The entity does not take a position on legal duties for individual company directors.

It states that: 'Fair Wear does not take a position on legal duties for individual company directors. However, we believe it is crucial that businesses should effectively consult a wide range of stakeholders. Stakeholder engagement must be done throughout all stages of the due diligence process. It should also be integrated into remediation processes and efforts to compensate for damage and/or loss. To ensure that this is meaningful, these processes must involve all relevant stakeholders, in particularly workers or their representatives'.

Although not directly asked, the entity is in favour of including stakeholder engagement in all phases of due diligence.

The entity states that: 'we believe it is crucial that businesses should effectively consult a wide range of stakeholders. Stakeholder engagement must be done throughout all stages of the due diligence process. It should also be integrated into remediation processes and efforts to compensate for damage and/or loss. To ensure that this is meaningful, these processes must involve all relevant stakeholders, in particularly workers or their representatives.'

There's a support for stakeholder engagement throuhgout due diligence.

The joint statement indicates that 'It is important that the Directive integrates stakeholder engagement as a critical component of effective due diligence, recognises the role of trade unions and worker representatives, and promotes effective collaboration between companies, including in the context of industry and multistakeholder initiatives'.

Although not directly asked, the entity is in favour of including stakeholder engagement in all phases of due diligence.

The entity states that: 'we believe it is crucial that businesses should effectively consult a wide range of stakeholders. Stakeholder engagement must be done throughout all stages of the due diligence process. It should also be integrated into remediation processes and efforts to compensate for damage and/or loss. To ensure that this is meaningful, these processes must involve all relevant stakeholders, in particularly workers or their representatives.'

There's a support for stakeholder engagement throuhgout due diligence.

The joint statement indicates that 'It is important that the Directive integrates stakeholder engagement as a critical component of effective due diligence, recognises the role of trade unions and worker representatives, and promotes effective collaboration between companies, including in the context of industry and multistakeholder initiatives'.

The entity states that it does not have a position on allocating legal duty to individual company directors.

The entity agrees 'to some extent' to this question of the consultation. It adds that: 'A comprehensive due diligence process should also require companies to manage the risks of any adverse human rights impacts on their stakeholders that they may cause or contribute to. However, this is primarily about risk to the stakeholders – not risk to the company. For example, in conducting human rights due diligence, a company should assess potential harmful impacts on workers in its supply chain, focusing on the risk to the workers, not the business. Nevertheless, in doing so, the company benefits through ensuring stronger, more resilient operations and supply chains.'