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.
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents.
While the entity indicates support for an international framework on due diligence, it suggests focusing on non-legiative options. It cautions the EU Commission to not be rushing into implementing legislation on this without thorough impact assessments.
The entity states that 'we emphasize that an internationally recogniyed due diligence framework is necessary to ensure a global level playing field and competitiveness of companies operating in the EU, in line with the UNGP and OECD guidelines .... In the absence of globally agreed framework, competitors not subject to due diligence duties may step in, creating a vacuum where European companies suffer from competitive disadvantages while the violation of sustainability goals continue to exist. ... Thus, the establishment of a corporate obligation may cause unintended consequences, as companies may be confronted with incalculable legal risks ... which may result in a complete withdrawal from the EU markets .... More serious consideration should be given to non-legiltive options.'
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 answers that ‘No, it should be enough to focus on asking companies to follow existing guidelines and standards.’
In response to question 2, the entity considers that it should be enough to focus on following existing guidelines and ‘Legal framework should be the last option. Before introducing legal framework, EU should try variety of methods to encourage companies to follow existing international guidelines and standards.’
In response to question 14, the entity disagrees with the definition of due diligence because ‘voluntary approach is more desirable than enforcing by law’.
In response to question 15, the entity emphasizes on option 4 ‘Sector-specific approach’: The EU should continue focusing on adopting due diligence requirements for key sectors only.
Requiring Human rights due diligence of all companies, regardless of sector and size, while still reflecting their individual circumstances.
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents.
The entity indicates the burden of a potential legislation would be particularly high for SMEs.
The entity states that 'In practice it is impossible to manage all the risks related to a company's business relationship along the whole supply chain, this is legally and administratively challenging. More importantly, it means that companies will be asked to step in and fulfill obligations that usually belong to governments. In particular, such an obligation would be extremely burdensome for SMEs.
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 not supportive for requiring human rights due diligence of all companies, regardless of sector and size. Instead, the entity considers that it should focus on key sectors only and SMEs should be excluded with some exceptions.
In response to question 15, the entity picks up ‘Option 4 “Sector-specific approach”: The EU should continue focusing on adopting due diligence requirements for key sectors only.’
In response to question 16, the entity states that ‘SMEs should be excluded with some exceptions (e.g. most risky sectors or other)’.
Implementing an enforcement mechanism where companies fail to carry out due diligence as described.
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents.
The entity indicates that legal enforcement of a due diligence duty could lead to companies withdrawing from the EU market.
The entity states that 'Thus, the establishment of a corporate obligation may cause unintended consequences, as companies may be confronted with incalculable legal risks arising from possible civil liabilities to administrative or even criminal sanctions which may result in a complete withdrawal from the EU markets due to undefined sustainability frameworks.'
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 not supportive for implementing an enforcement mechanism.
In response to question 19a, the entity states that ‘Voluntary approach is Motivating is more desirable rather than enforcing by law.’
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 it is important to implement coherent enforcement of due diligence rules among EU Member States.
The entity considers 'Given that national supervisory authorities will be primarily responsible for the enforcement of due diligence rules, this risks inconsistent enforcement among the EU Member States. We note that, according to Article 21, the Commission will set up a European Network of Supervisory Authorities (“ENSA”), composed of representatives from national supervisory authorities, to facilitate cooperation among authorities and coordinated investigation, sanctions, and supervisory practices. We suggest the ENSA to ensure consistent enforcement among the EU Member States and to speak directly with companies when necessary.'
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.
Although the entity agrees to some extent on directors’ legal duty to identify the company’s stakeholder and their interests, the entity disagrees to some extent on directors’ legal duty to set up procedures to manage human rights impacts.
In response to question 7, the entity states that ‘Motivating is more desirable rather than enforcing by law’.
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 disagrees to some extent on director’s responsibility to establish and apply consultation mechanisms. It considers that a grievance mechanism should be considered best practice rather than being promoted as mandatory.
In response to question 20a, the entity disagrees to some extent on director's responsibility, without further explanations.
In response to question 20c, the entity considers that advisory body is the best practice for consultation mechanisms.
Enabling judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence obligations.
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents.
The entity's statement appears to be not supportive of civil liability provisions,
The entity states that 'Thus, the establishment of a corporate obligation may cause unintended consequences, as companies may be confronted with incalculable legal risks arising from possible civil liabilities .... However, if the Commission decides to adopt a binding legislation, companies should only be liable for failing to maintain a reasonable due diligence process, or for providing inaccurate or deceptive statements about their process.'
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.
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents.
The entity states that a coverage of the full supply chain is in practice not possible. It does not reference the downstream aspect of the value chain.
The entity states that '... the initiatives make companies responsible for the entire supply chain, typically involving various components and actors, which are normally not subject to their control. In practice, it is impossible to manage all the risks related to a company's business relationship along the whole supply chain. This is legally and administratively challenging..'
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 not supportive for requiring human rights due diligence covering their value chains. Instead, the entity considers that it should focus on key sectors only and SMEs should be excluded with some exceptions.
In response to question 2, the entity considers that it should be enough to focus on following existing guidelines.
In response to question 14 it states 'I disagree with it becuase voluntary approach is more desirable than enforcing by law and already established international guidlines could be used to promote corporate due dilignece matter.' In response to question 15, the entity picks up ‘Option 4 “Sector-specific approach”: The EU should continue focusing on adopting due diligence requirements for key sectors only.’
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 not supportive for covering all value chains in due diligence process.
The entity considers that ‘the scope of the due diligence across the supply chain is too broad. For multinational corporations that have a complex web of supply chains around the world, it is not practical, if not impossible, to implement due diligence obligations in a meaningful way’. The entity recommends the Commission to limit the scope of the due diligence on the supply chain to directly established business relationships.
Require that companies implement contract clauses and Code of Conduct with business partners clarifying obligations to avoid and to address human rights 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 considers the definition of contract clauses is not clear.
The entity states that ‘term “contractual assurances” is mentioned several times’, however, ‘specific details on what needs to be covered in “contractual assurances” are missing.’ The entity suggests making the guidelines on practical issues and adopting guidance on model contract clauses as soon as possible to provide clarifications.
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 identify the company’s stakeholder and their interests.
In response to question 6, the entity states it agrees to some extent on directors’ legal duty to identify the company’s stakeholders and their interests, without further explanation. It considers most stakeholder interests suggested as relevant for a company. However, the entity disagrees to some extent on directors’ legal duty on the long run and identifying the opportunities arising from promoting stakeholders’ interests without further elaborating on its position.
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 disagrees to some extent on director’s responsibility to establish and apply consultation mechanisms.
In response to question 20a, the entity disagrees to some extent on director's responsibility, without further explanations.
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.
Although the entity agrees to some extent on directors’ legal duty to identify the company’s stakeholder and their interests, the entity disagrees to some extent on directors’ legal duty on the long run. The entity disagrees to some extent on directors’ legal duty to set up procedures to management human rights.
In response to question 6, although the entity agrees to some extent on directors’ legal duty to identify the company’s stakeholder and their interests, the entity disagrees to some extent on directors’ legal duty on the long run.
In response to question 7, the entity states that ‘Motivating is more desirable rather than enforcing by law.’
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Member | Performance band |
|---|---|
| PwC IL | C |
