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 thinks ‘an EU legal framework is needed’ and agrees on the definition of due diligence.
In response to question 2, the entity states that ‘Regulatory approaches across different EU member states show the need for a harmonised European approach to counter legislative fragmentation.’In response to question 3, considering the benefits of an EU due diligence duty, the entity chooses that ‘Contribute effectively to a more sustainable development, including in non-EU countries; Levelling the playing field, avoiding that some companies freeride on the efforts of others; Increasing legal certainty about how companies should tackle their impacts, including in their value chain; Harmonisation to avoid fragmentation in the EU, as emerging national laws are different’.
In response to question 14, the entity agrees on the definition but states that ‘materiality needs to be added as an integral part.
In response to question 15, the entity chooses option 1. ‘Principles-based approach’, stating ‘a general due diligence duty based on key process requirements …should be defined at EU level regarding identification, prevention and mitigation of relevant human rights, social and environmental risks and negative impact. These should be applicable across all sectors.’
In response to question 17, the entity agrees that due diligence rules should be applied to certain third-country companies.
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.
Although the entity is in favour of a horizontal approach, the entity considers that ‘SMEs should be excluded with some exceptions and micro and small sized enterprises (less than 50 people employed) should be excluded.’
In response to question 15, the entity chooses option 1. ‘Principles-based approach’, stating ‘a general due diligence duty based on key process requirements …should be defined at EU level regarding identification, prevention and mitigation of relevant human rights, social and environmental risks and negative impact. These should be applicable across all sectors.’
In response to question 16, the entity considers that ‘SMEs should be excluded with some exceptions (e.g. most risky sectors or other); Micro and small sized enterprises (less than 50 people employed) should be excluded; Capacity building support, including funding; Detailed non-binding guidelines catering for the needs of SMEs in particular’.
In response to question 17, the entity agrees that due diligence rules should be applied to certain third-country companies.
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 competent national authorities (option 2) with a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination to ensure consistency throughout the EU’.
In response to question 19a, the entity chooses option 2, ‘Supervision by competent national authorities (option 2) with a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination to ensure consistency throughout the EU’, without further explanation.
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 agrees to some extent on directors’ legal duty to identity the company’s stakeholders and their interests, to set up procedures to identify, prevent and address human rights, social, health and environmental risks.
In response to question 6, the entity agrees to some extent on director’s legal duty and states that ‘the involvement of material in- and external stakeholders allows for a holistic picture of the company and their overall profile of risks and opportunities.’
In response to question 7, the entity states that material risks should be identified, and suitable measures should be taken. Long-term risks must be included in risk management, while there is no benefit in detailed assessment of and reporting on non-material risks.
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 does not take a position however, it considers that ‘advisory body and complaint mechanism as part of due diligence should be promoted at EU level.’
In response to question 20a, the entity does not take a position but states that ‘This is strongly related to the business model and the overall company structure. It should not be defined by the regulator which stakeholders are relevant.’
In response to question 20c, the entity answers that advisory body and complaint mechanism as part of due diligence should be promoted at EU level.
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 ‘Supervision by competent national authorities (option 2) with a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination to ensure consistency throughout the EU’.
In response to question 19a, the entity choose option 2, ‘Supervision by competent national authorities (option 2) with a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination to ensure consistency throughout the EU’, without further explanation.
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 thinks ‘an EU legal framework is needed’ and agrees on the definition of due diligence.
In response to question 2, the entity states that ‘an EU legal framework is needed’’
In response to question 3, considering the benefits of an EU due diligence duty, the entity chooses that ‘Increasing legal certainty about how companies should tackle their impacts, including in their value chain; Harmonisation to avoid fragmentation in the EU, as emerging national laws are different’.
In response to question 14, the entity agrees on the definition but states that ‘materiality needs to be added as an integral part.
In response to question 15, the entity chooses option 1. ‘Principles-based approach’, stating ‘a general due diligence duty based on key process requirements (such as for example identification and assessment of risks, evaluation of the operations and of the supply chain, risk and impact mitigation actions, alert mechanism, evaluation of the effectiveness of measures, grievance mechanism, etc.) should be defined at EU level regarding identification, prevention and mitigation of relevant human rights, social and environmental risks and negative impact. These should be applicable across all sectors.’
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 agrees to some extent on directors’ legal duty to identity the company’s stakeholders and their interests.
In response to question 6, the entity agrees to some extent on director’s legal duty and states that ‘the involvement of material in- and external stakeholders allows for a holistic picture of the company and their overall profile of risks and opportunities.’
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 does not take a position but seems that it is not supportive of requirements for directors to establish and apply consultation mechanisms.
In response to question 20a, the entity does not take a position but states that ‘This is strongly related to the business model and the overall company structure. It should not be defined by the regulator which stakeholders are relevant.’
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 agrees to some extent on directors’ legal duty to identity the company’s stakeholders and their interests, to set up procedures to identify, prevent and address human rights, social, health and environmental risks.
In response to question 6, the entity agrees to some extent on director’s legal duty and states that ‘the involvement of material in- and external stakeholders allows for a holistic picture of the company and their overall profile of risks and opportunities.’
In response to question 7, the entity states that material risks should be identified, and suitable measures should be taken. Long-term risks must be included in risk management, while there is no benefit in detailed assessment of and reporting on non-material risks.
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Industry Association | Performance band |
|---|