International Copper Association Europe

The European Copper Institute (ECI) welcomes the Commission’s ambition to set up rules for sustainable corporate due diligence (CSDD). ECI always supports policies and schemes that ensure responsible copper mining and production and contribute to establishing a level playing field across all relevant global supply chains and regions.

“Substantiated concerns and presumption of innocence

The CSDD proposal ... entitles natural and legal persons, in Article 19, to submit substantiated concerns when they have reasons to believe, based on objective circumstances, that a company is failing to comply with CSDD.... The proposal’s text lacks to specify how these substantiated concerns should be verified and how to avoid reputation damage from false claims. Moreover, effective redress mechanisms shall be provided in case of false claims.

ECI asks the EC to have a clear definition of substantiating concerns and a procedure to check their legitimacy.”

“Although the switch from supply to the value chain is understandable, the definition needs to be refined. The UNGPs might help here give better context because it gives a precise definition of a “business relationship” and helps in having a straightforward approach to what is a “value chain”. In such context, “business relationships” include relationships with business partners, entities in its value chain, and any other non-State or State entity directly linked to its business operations, products or services. ... However, the definition of the value chain should exempt the companies from any responsibilities on financial actors with which they interact.”

“... For instance, the definition of ‘established business relationship’ refers to a relationship expected to be lasting. However, this might incentivise some companies to use short term contracts for high-risk suppliers. Therefore, ECI sees the need to align the CSDD proposal with UNPGs, removing the definition of ‘established relationships’.”

“The traceability of the secondary raw materials is extremely difficult; it might be costly and not conclusive on several occasions. (…) Very strict and demanding due diligence requirements for secondary raw materials would risk having manufacturers opting for virgin materials, the tracking of which is much easier and well-established. As a result, the uptake of secondary raw materials would be disincentivised, and the aim to increase the use of recycled sources would be hindered. For this reason, requirements need to be simplified and include clear expectations on the point of origin for recycled materials.”

“Clear guidelines for disengagement are necessary to avoid unintended consequences on the ground. There is no clear definition of the conditions upon which a company must disengage or interrupt a contract in Articles 7 and 8. However, it is known that by removing one element of risk via disengagement, additional adverse impacts are caused, especially on the ground to local populations or companies involved, for instance, in extractive operations or ores beneficiation. The EU Commission recognises that the disengagement must be a ‘last-resort action’, but the text does not realise that disengaging will not eliminate the problem on the ground and create issues for the company that stops contracts.... The disengagement allows companies to ‘walk away’; however, it will be more effective to incentivise and help companies apply remediation strategies when possible. There is definitively the need for the EU Commission, and maybe international bodies experts on the matter, to give guidance to companies and the member states about disengagement and remediation.”