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.
The entity explicitly supports the Omnibus delays and simplifications.
The entity states that: 'We welcome the urgency that EU co-legislators have demonstrated to complete the legislative process for the 'Stop-the-clock' proposal, as it provides the clarity, stability, and confidence that businesses need to invest in the EU's sustainable future while the final provisions have yet to be agreed.
The entity supports the fast-tracking of the adoption procedure of the longer transition period.
The press statement indicates that: 'FoodDrinkEurope supports the fast-tracking of the adoption procedure of the longer transition period for (…) the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D) as outlined in the Commission’s omnibus package'.
It supports the European Commission legislative proposal and EU-wide harmonised framework.
The entity indicates: ‘FoodDrinkEurope supports the European Commission’s efforts to establish, through a legislative proposal, an EU-wide harmonised framework that encourages companies across sectors to further address their potential impact on human rights and the environment. Such legislation should create a level playing field for companies, increase transparency on human rights and environmental challenges along supply chains, and drive collaborative action to address them, while preserving the essential role of enterprises as creators of growth and employment'.
By endorsing this joint statement, the entity demonstrates support for the Omnibus Simplification Package designed to lower the level of ambition and delay the implementation of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.
The document states that: 'The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (“CS3D”), undoubtedly the flagship legislation adopted under the Green Deal, is particularly ambitious in terms of its scope thereby creating challenging and impactful new obligations for businesses with global value chains and in some instances rife unintended repercussions for the real economy in the EU and in third countries. ... We, the undersigned European associations representing companies and sectors impacted by the CS3D, welcome the European Commission’s intention to put administrative burden relief and simplification at the heart of its agenda'. It also calls for extending the implementation phase: 'Guidelines and implementing legislation should be adopted at least two years before compliance with legislation becomes mandatory or the transition period should be extended'.
The joint statement shows support for the legal framework on due diligence irrespective of diverging views on certain aspects.
The joint statement indicates that: 'While we hold diverging views on certain aspects of the law, we are aligned in recognising the necessity of a common EU wide legal framework, as part of a smart and coherent mix of policy and legislative measures. We therefore urge the co-legislators to reach a political agreement in view of adopting the final version of the law ... We commend the co-legislators’ efforts in current negotiations toensure that the CS3D follows a risk-based approach and builds on existing globally recognised due diligence standards, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises ... Key elements of this risk-based approach include the recognition of different modes of involvement with adverse impacts and allowing companies to prioritise the most severe and likely ones'.
The entity is in favour of a regulatory approach towards due diligence.
"Re: Companies call for a level playing field on due diligence...... Our associations remain supportive of the proposed directive on corporate sustainability due diligence. However, we call strongly for maximum harmonisation provisions to be introduced into the legal framework so as to ensure a level playing field and avoid further internal market fragmentation. Divergent national legal regimes on due diligence would not only be costly and burdensome for companies of all sizes but, more importantly, risk undermining the achievement of the goals of the legislation in an efficient and effective manner."
Implementing an enforcement mechanism where companies fail to carry out due diligence as described.
It recommends the establishment of a proportionate enforcement and sanctions mechanism taking into account the specificities of legal frameworks in third countries.
It recommends to: ‘Ensure the establishment of a proportionate enforcement and sanctions mechanism that takes into account the specificities of legal frameworks in third countries and works to enable engagement and impactful actions by operators’.
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'.
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.
The entity supports due diligence beyond Tier 1, but seeks to limit its application to high-risk areas. The proposal omits any reference to remediation or continuous improvement.
The entity indicates that: 'We are convinced that a well-designed two-step risk-based due diligence process that extends beyond Tier 1 gives companies the opportunity to focus proactively on and invest in those areas in which they identify the most severe adverse impacts, building on their knowledge of and leverage on their own supply chains'. Also that 'the limitation to direct business partners would lead to less impactful due diligence while creating a high bureaucratic burden for companies subject to CSDDD and their direct business partners'. The entity calls for two-step, risk-based approach. Therefore, it calls for limiting the application to high risk areas, whilst covering the full value chain. It states that: 'FoodDrinkEurope and its members are committed to contributing to workable solutions across the whole food and drink value chain', and that 'It is critical to address concerns from all value chain members to design this process in a workable and acceptable way for small and large companies, from the farmers to the retailers'. It does not mention remedy, nor improvement over time.
As a response to the publication of the Omnibus package, the entity advocates for a risk-based approach, in which companies must first scope out social risks throughout all areas of their business, across their operations and relationships, including in their supply chains.
The entity indicates: ‘FoodDrinkEurope wants the Omnibus package to promote a risk-based approach, in which companies must first scope out environmental and social risks “throughout all areas of their business, across their operations and relationships, including in their supply chains” and then use that as the basis for in-depth due diligence. This approach would prevent firms spending resources assessing every supplier and instead allow them to focus on tackling major problems, the trade body explained in a position paper on the EU Omnibus, published this week. Besides, it added, “major risks typically occur beyond tier 1 across the value chain”’. Therefore, it calls for limiting the application to high risk areas, although covering the full value chain. It does not mention remedy nor improvement over time.
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'.
Require assessment and additional action (e.g. capacity building or monitoring of suppliers) where the risks for severe human rights impacts are greatest.
Although the entity calls for a more detailed risk-based assessment in high risk areas, it does not seem like an additional effort, but a standard procedure. It does not refer to specific additional actions.
The entity proposes, 'a two-step risk-based approach: Companies are to begin with a risk based initial scoping of human rights and environmental risk throughout all areas of their business, across their operations and relationships, including in their supply chains. This scoping should rely on existing and readily available information. For supply chain segments or areas that are identified as major risk areas through this initial scoping, companies should subsequently carry out more detailed risk-based assessments in the relevant parts of the supply chain – regardless of the tier – where such an assessment is justified'. However, no reference was found to specific additional actions in specific places where the risks are greatest.
Require that companies implement contract clauses and Code of Conduct with business partners clarifying obligations to avoid and to address human rights harms.
The signatories call for avoid the extension of the scope of CS3D during implementation and introduction of guidance on model contract clauses.
The statement indicates that 'competitiveness assessment that leads to the new simplification should ensure that upcoming implementing legislation and guidance (…) are co-developed to address gaps or excessively burdensome provisions, rather than introduce additional layers of complexity or de facto extend the scope of the CS3D'.
Require that human rights risks and impacts should be assessed through dialogue with stakeholder or with their legitimate 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'.
Require that action plans are developed in consultation with affected stakeholders.
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'.
| Legislation | Position |
|---|---|
| EU CSDDD | Neutral/Mixed |
| Omnibus | Not Supporting |