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 the introduction of a mandatory human rights due diligence framework at the EU level, and states that voluntary standards are sufficient.
Q 2: "No, it should be enough to focus on asking companies to follow existing guidelines and standards."
"There is already existing relevant legislation focused on human rights and environmental issues both at the EU -level and at a national level. Companies are already doing a lot in terms of acting responsibly on these matters. Companies are committed to protecting human rights and the environment to meet the expectations of responsible business conduct."
"In the case of a mandatory legislation on due diligence at EU level, we suggest a “smart mix” of minimum standards plus industry initiatives and incentives: minimum requirements should be in place, and incentives should be granted to frontrunners to opt to go beyond. Most importantly, the Commission should recognise industry’s efforts. As such we are in favour of building on existing (multi-stakeholder) voluntary due diligence schemes"
"This said, we support the EU recent initiatives to look in-depth on EU Due-Diligence issue. If there is a political will to introduce a binding law, we believe, this decision has to create an effective and hands-on system of EU Due-Diligence, that will help the EU to make a real impact on the ground."
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 thresholds that limit company scope based on real impact and purchasing power, rather than placed on size and number of employees.
Q 14: "Thresholds should be established limiting Due Diligence obligations for companies to the real impact on the field (e.g. purchasing power could be a better threshold than the size/n. of employees)."
Q 16: "In case the EU institutions propose to limit due diligence companies’ obligations, we suggest looking for thresholds that limit the due-diligence obligations to companies with a real impact on the field. For example, a 5000 employees’ manufacturer could have less impact on the ground than 5 employees trading company, so Thresholds on number of employees is (for our sector) not the best approach. Purchasing power could be a better threshold."
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 having an "efficient, impartial and transparent" enforcement mechanism, but cautions against administrative burdens and disproportionate sanctions.
Q 19a: Selected "Other" - The new due diligence legislation should be based on efficient, impartial and transparent enforcement mechanisms, in line with policy objectives and goals. The EU should particularly aim to avoid creating an administrative burden on European companies which might reduce their incentive to produce or deal with products containing the concerned minerals, or lead to their withdrawal from the market and replacement by companies from other regions that are not bound by similar regulations ... Furthermore, the sanctions should consider how much the company could reasonably be aware of, how much it could influence and mitigate and how serious the breach was. The appropriate enforcement mechanism must be defined accordingly.
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 states that stakeholder engagement and means of dialogue should be determined by the company and not explicitly required by legislation.
Q 20a: "I strongly disagree"
"Companies already have many different ways for dialogue between stakeholders and these ways are always developed further ... Consultation of relevant stakeholders is important, but should be determined by the company, not dictated through legislation."
Q 14: Transparency, trust and stakeholder-involvement should be ensured across the value chain, avoiding: disclosure of business sensitive information (business confidentiality) to 3rd parties. potential conflict between data protection law, employee confidentiality, works councils and competition and the company-level grievance mechanism."
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 did not select civil liability as an option in relation to Q 19a on enforcement of the CSDDD. The entity also states that any company that implements a due diligence plan should not be held liable.
Q 19a: in relation to the enforcement of the CSDDD, the entity selected "Other" - "it is crucial that there is no reversal of the burden of proof and that business is considered innocent until proven otherwise ... Furthermore, the sanctions should consider how much the company could reasonably be aware of, how much it could influence and mitigate and how serious the breach was. The appropriate enforcement mechanism must be defined accordingly. Also, if a company implements a due diligence plan, respecting the binding content and quality, 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 calls for the CSDDD, if adopted, to be introduced at the value chain level to avoid loopholes. However, they also state that due diligence obligations should be limited to tier 1 suppliers and that secondary raw materials should be considered separately.
Q 14: "Due diligence obligations should be limited to the direct supplier (Tier 1)." "Secondary raw materials should be considered separately."
"In order to have a real impact on business practices, the forthcoming legislation should be introduced at value chain level ... The entire value chain concept needs to be critically examined and clarified, not only in terms of clarity of language (supply chain vs. value chain) but more importantly with regard to approach to and scope of due diligence. For example, it should be better clarified:
if companies are expected to conduct due diligence across their entire supply chain (direct and indirect sourcing) and how this would look in practical terms (without creating overly burdensome due diligence process) ... Thus, the EU due diligence system should cover all segments of the supply chain, avoiding the creation of loopholes."
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 opposes having director's duties in relation to stakeholder engagement and consultation mechanisms. While they acknowledge it as an important process, they believe that it should be left to companies' discretion.
Q 20a: "I strongly disagree"
"Consultation of relevant stakeholders is an important part of companies’ current due diligence processes but it should be up to the company itself to define which stakeholders are relevant and what is the most appropriate way to ensure such consultation and inclusion. This is a matter that needs to be decided by companies themselves. Companies already have many different ways for dialogue between stakeholders and these ways are always developed further ... Consultation of relevant stakeholders is important, but should be determined by the company, not dictated through legislation."
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Member | Performance band |
|---|