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.
It seems the entity is to some extent supportive for EU legal framework.
In response to question 2, the entity states that ‘ICMM is supportive of an EU legal framework so long as it adds value in terms of impact to people and planet and does not introduce new processes which may conflict with or duplicate well established standards and legislation in supplier jurisdictions. Any legal framework produced needs to ensure it is complementary to existing mandatory and voluntary frameworks.’ In response to question 14, the entity seems to be supportive for the definition of due diligence by indicating that ‘due diligence duty refers to a legal requirement for companies to establish and implement adequate processes with a view to IDENTIFY, prevent, mitigate and account for ADVERSE human rights (including labour rights and working conditions), health and environmental impacts TO PEOPLE AND PLANET, including relating to climate change, both in the company’s own operations and in the company’s the supply chain.’
In response to question 15, the entity picks option 1 ‘Principles-based approach’, stating that ‘a general due diligence duty should be defined at ET level and could be applicable across all sectors.’
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 is to some extent supportive for requiring human rights due diligence of all companies, regardless of sector and size. However, the entity thinks that SMEs should have lighter reporting requirements considering their size and impact.
In response to question 14, the entity seems to be supportive for the definition of due diligence by indicating that ‘due diligence duty refers to a legal requirement for companies to establish and implement adequate processes with a view to IDENTIFY, prevent, mitigate and account for ADVERSE human rights (including labour rights and working conditions), health and environmental impacts TO PEOPLE AND PLANET, including relating to climate change, both in the company’s own operations and in the company’s the supply chain.’
In response to question 15, the entity picks option 1 ‘Principles-based approach’, stating that ‘a general due diligence duty should be defined at ET level and could be applicable across all sectors.’ The entity also states in response to question 15f that ‘All sectors should have due diligence responsibilities.’
In response to question 16, the entity considers that all business has potential environmental and social impacts, however, efforts should be proportionate to their size and impact. The entity states that ‘SMEs should have lighter reporting requirements’.
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 is in favour of a mix of policies, including judicial measures, sanctions and incentives.
In response to question 19, the entity considers that a mix of policies should be included, which includes judicial measures, sanctions, incentives and transparency is recommended in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
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 suggests an enforcement mechanism that includes compensation.
The entity selects option 1 and 3 of question 19a, which includes 'Judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence obligations'. It elaborates as follows: 'A ‘smart mix’ of policies should be included, which includes judicial measures, sanctions, incentives and transparency is recommended in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.''
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 chooses option 1 and 3 in response to question 19a and considers a mix of policies is needed. Considering the entity states ‘this should include enforcement mechanism’, it is understood that the entity is supportive to some extent on enabling judicial enforcement.
In response to question 19, the entity is in favour of a mix of policies should be included, which includes judicial measures, sanctions, and incentives and states that ‘This should include an efficient, impartial, proportionate and transparent enforcement mechanism, with the Court of Justice being the guarantee for law enforcement, and which supports the presumption of innocence and the fact that if a company implements due diligence that is good quality and focused on outcomes for people, it should not be held liable.’
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 recognises that due diligence process should cover their supply chains. However, no reference was found regarding the downstream aspect of value chains.
In response to question 2, the entity emphasizes that ‘the OECD guidance on due diligence in mineral supply chains provides the most globally accepted approach for due diligence across the whole supply chain’ and any new requirements must ensure ‘they are not duplicative of and do not conflict with these frameworks.’
In response to question 3, the entity chooses option 1, 2, 3,4 and 6.
In response to question 14, the entity concludes that ‘due diligence duty refers to a legal requirement for companies to establish and implement adequate processes with a view to IDENTIFY, prevent, mitigate and account for ADVERSE human rights (including labour rights and working conditions), health and environmental impacts TO PEOPLE AND PLANET, including relating to climate change, both in the company’s own operations and in the company’s the supply chain.’
In response to question 15, the entity chooses option 1 ‘Principles-based approach’ and considers that a general due diligence duty should be applicable across all sectors.
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Member | Performance band |
|---|---|
| Vale | F |
| Anglo American | F |
| Glencore | F |
| Rio Tinto | F |
| Antofagasta | F |
| Freeport-McMoRan | F |
| Newmont | F |
| Teck Resources | F |
| Alcoa | F |
| AngloGold Ashanti | F |
| BHP | F |
| Barrick | F |
| Gold Fields | F |