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 does not support introducing human rights due diligence requirements at the EU level and argues that existing legislation and efforts are sufficient.
“Companies often already do take social and environmental issues into account. However, this statement should not result in the assumption that a new legally binding regulation on due diligence is needed.”
Question 2 response : “No action is necessary” -
“The European Commission should not come up with a proposal for mandatory due diligence. European business expressly recognises its responsibility for human rights. European business has already been very active for many years in performing its CSR and sustainability activities. … The plan for a law on the supply chain for all companies is quite simply unworkable. UN/OECD standards explicitly lay down that no liability arises based on business activities.” “In addition, introducing even more legislation at a time where value chains are heavily disrupted due to the COVID19 crisis could make it harder for companies to effectively secure, redesign or be able to rebuild essential supply chains in the recovery phase. Potential legislation would need to take this into account and equally consider long-term structural changes to global value chains induced by COVID-19.”
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 calls for the exclusion of SMEs and mid-sized companies.
Q 16: “All SMEs should be excluded”. -
“If legislation would be proposed, SMEs and mid-sized companies must be excluded from any mandatory due diligence obligations. The European Commission should follow a “think small first”-approach. SMEs are the backbone of Europe’s economy. Their restricted possibilities must be duly taken into account.”
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 supports supervision by national authorities as an enforcement mechanism.
In response to Q 19a on enforcement of the CSDDD, the entity selected “Supervision by competent national authorities based on complaints (and/or reporting, where relevant) about non-compliance with setting up and implementing due diligence measures, etc. with effective sanctions (such as for example fines).”
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 argues that directors duties are and should be regulated by law in some instances, but that no specific duties or compliance procedures should be introduced in the EU CSDDD.
In response to question 7 on whether corporate directors should have duties in relation to possible adverse risks and impacts on stakeholders, the entity selected "I disagree to some extent" - "The basic duties of the board of directors are to be regulated by law and are regulated everywhere by law. However, detailed specifications and compliance procedures may not be laid down by the legislator, as these depend very much on the specific need of the companies and the requirements vary greatly depending on the industry and the purpose of the company. General legal requirements would therefore only lead to additional bureaucracy."
Require companies to provide remedy for human rights impacts they have caused or contributed to.
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 cites the UNGPs and outlines the importance of differentiating between the notions of cause, contribute, and directly linked to in assessed a company's responsibility to remediate. However, they do not make clear whether they support remediation for impacts that were caused or contributed to by the company.
Q 14: "Furthermore, the UNGP (UN GP, commentary, section 3) are clear that “where adverse impacts have occurred that the business enterprise has not caused or contributed to, but which are directly linked to its operations, products or services by a business relationship, the responsibility to respect human rights does not require that the enterprise itself provide for remediation…” The notion on “cause/contribute/directly linked” should be taken into account."
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 opposes any new laws that require companies to provide complaints or grievance mechanisms for stakeholders.
In response to questions 20c, which asks, "Which mechanisms should in your view be promoted at EU level? (tick the box, multiple choice)" the entity did not select any of the mechanisms available, including a complaint mechanisms part of the due diligence process. They selected "other" and specified, "new legislation is not needed."
In response to question 20a, which asks "Do you believe that the EU should 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 in this area?" the entity responded "I strongly disagree" - "There already exists EU-legislation on the information and consultation of workers. Further new regulations are not needed.
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 support the inclusion of civil liability provisions for companies in the CSDDD.
In response to question 3 on the potential drawbacks of an EU due diligence law, the entity stated, "A possible civil liability for companies for global value/supply chains."
Q 19a: In response to the enforcement of the CSDDD, the entity selected that there should be supervision by competent national authorities, but did not support the inclusion of judicial enforcement and civil liability provisions.
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 strongly opposes the introduction of an EU supply chain due diligence law, and states that conducting due diligence throughout the entire value chain is completely unrealistic.
Q 3: "The European Commission should not come up with new legislation on global value/supply chains." "A law on the supply chain would thwart efforts by governments to encourage companies to engage and invest in developing countries. Companies would have to pull out of States with a challenging human rights situation (“Cut and run” instead of “stay and behave”). Global trade would be dramatically damaged, many employees in developing and emerging countries would lose their jobs and SMEs from these countries would find their access to global supply chains blocked. It is important to have positive measures at local level in developing and emerging countries because 80% of workers are totally unaffected by global supply chains." Q 2: "Calls for companies “to guarantee standards throughout the production chain from the cotton field to the coat-hanger” are completely unrealistic. Some large companies in the Metal- and Electrical Engineering Industry have over 100,000 direct suppliers (“tier 1”), the further upstream tiers of suppliers comprise million companies."
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 does not support introducing a requirement for companies to identify stakeholders and their interests.
In response to question 6, which asks "Do you consider that corporate directors should be required by law to (1) identify the company´s stakeholders and their interests, (2) to manage the risks for the company in relation to stakeholders and their interests, including on the long run (3) and to identify the opportunities arising from promoting stakeholders’ interests?", the entity responded "I strongly disagree" - "it is not reasonable to believe that companies can carry out an exhaustive overview of all their stakeholders’ interests. There is no definition behind “stakeholders” and no reasonable definition can be found due to the specificity of each company's environment. We strongly believe that any legal consequences attached to this notion would be highly problematic and hazardous for companies."
Q 8: "It should not be for EU law to determine which interests should be taken into account and how to grade them."
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 acknowledges the importance of engaging with stakeholders, but opposes the introduction of a legal requirement for directors to establish and apply consultation mechanisms.
In response to question 20a, which asks "Do you believe that the EU should 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 in this area?" the entity responded "I strongly disagree" - "There already exists EU-legislation on the information and consultation of workers. Further new regulations are not needed. We recognise that consultation of relevant stakeholders is important in the life of companies, but it should be up to the company itself to define which stakeholders are relevant. Companies already organise the dialogue with their stakeholders using different mechanisms that are suitable to the intended goals: internal, advisory committees, roadshows, direct dialogue, one to one meetings, partnerships, co-innovation, panels… etc."
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 opposes introducing a requirement for directors to manage the human rights risks for their company in relation to its stakeholders.
In response to question 6, which asks "Do you consider that corporate directors should be required by law to (1) identify the company´s stakeholders and their interests, (2) to manage the risks for the company in relation to stakeholders and their interests, including on the long run (3) and to identify the opportunities arising from promoting stakeholders’ interests?", the entity responded "I strongly disagree" - "it is not reasonable to believe that companies can carry out an exhaustive overview of all their stakeholders’ interests. There is no definition behind “stakeholders” and no reasonable definition can be found due to the specificity of each company's environment. We strongly believe that any legal consequences attached to this notion would be highly problematic and hazardous for companies." Q 8: "It should not be for EU law to determine which interests should be taken into account and how to grade them."
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Member | Performance band |
|---|