Mouvement Impact France

The entity expresses support for the CSDDD and urges the French government to support it.

The statement indicates: 'The Impact France Movement expresses its deep concern about the lack of a qualified majority on the European directive on corporate due diligence.A key element of the Green Deal, this text represents a historic opportunity to regulate the negative impacts of large corporations' business chains on the environment and human rights, and to end the fragmentation of due diligence obligations in Europe and around the world, which is often a source of legal uncertainty for businesses.As social and environmental scandals continue to unfold, the Impact France Movement deplores France's reversal of position in the negotiations. After supporting this text, it called for a revision of the directive's applicability thresholds to companies with more than 5,000 employees (compared to 500 in the compromise version adopted in the trialogue), and then failed to express firm public support during the last COREPER meeting. Impact France is also surprised that opposition to this directive is being voiced in the name of the "competitiveness of French companies," when the text's main impact is to better combat unfair competition from foreign companies with far lower social and environmental standards. The Impact France Movement therefore calls on France to support the compromise agreement approved in trialogue last December and to work fully to ensure its final adoption.'

The entity welcomes the proposal for Directive, although calls for a stronger, more ambitious text.

The entity indicates that it 'welcomes the adoption by the European Commission on 23 February of its proposal for a directive on corporate due diligence with regard to sustainable development. This legislation ... is a significant step towards a more sustainable European economic ecosystem that respects human rights. However, while Mouvement Impact France welcomes the inclusion of issues relating to due diligence and sustainable corporate governance on the European agenda, we regret the low level of ambition of the European Commission’s proposal for a directive. The Movement Impact France therefore calls on decision-makers to strengthen the scope of this text during the forthcoming discussions'.

The entity expresses criticism for the attempt by the French government to raise the size of companies to be covered in the directive.

The statement indicates: 'As social and environmental scandals continue to unfold, the Impact France Movement deplores France's reversal of position in the negotiations. After supporting this text, it called for a revision of the directive's applicability thresholds to companies with more than 5,000 employees (compared to 500 in the compromise version adopted in the trialogue), and then failed to express firm public support during the last COREPER meeting.'

Although it does not call for inclusion of all SMEs, it supports expanding the Directive’s scope to include companies with 250–500 employees and SMEs in high-risk sectors under a simplified regime.

The entity states that 'As it stands, the European Commission’s proposal for a directive applies only to all undertakings with more than 500 employees and to undertakings with more than 250 employees operating in high-risk sectors. Thus, there is no mention of SMEs, even those operating in high-risk sectors, in the text: the full exclusion of SMEs means that 99 % of businesses operating in the EU will not be affected by the Directive. The legislative proposal is therefore likely to close the spotlight on many harmful business activities. Mouvement Impact France regrets this lack of ambition and calls on the co-legislators to include all companies with 250 to 500 employees in the full due diligence process. In addition, we consider that companies with between 50 and 250 employees operating in high-risk sectors should be subject to simplified due diligence requirements'.

The entity welcomes the liability provisions in the Directive but calls for stronger legal mechanisms to ensure effective access to justice for victims.

The entity states that it 'welcomes the fact that companies may incur civil liability in the event of failure to comply with the duty of care. Now, victims of crime, including those committed abroad by subcontractors, will be able to bring legal proceedings in the European Union for damages if the company cannot show that it has done everything reasonably possible to minimise the risks. However, several legal obstacles are not removed by the proposal for a Directive. As it stands, the text does not mention crucial elements such as the burden of proof, the administrative and financial assistance allocated to victims or access to evidence. I therefore consider that every effort must be made to ensure genuine and fair access to justice for the victims of corporate abuse by removing those obstacles, which remain obstacles which do not allow the Directive to be fully effective'.

The entity supports cross-border access to justice for victims, including in cases involving foreign subsidiaries or subcontractors, and calls for the removal of legal barriers that limit effective remedy.

The entity indicates that 'Now, victims of crime, including those committed abroad by subcontractors, will be able to bring legal proceedings in the European Union for damages if the company cannot show that it has done everything reasonably possible to minimise the risks'.

The entity calls for applying due diligence requirements across the entire value chain, warning against loopholes tied to the “established business relationship” definition.

The entity states that ‘As it stands, the text provides that most of the due diligence requirements of companies only apply to “established business relationships”. … The proposal for a Directive specifies that these “established commercial relationships” must be reassessed periodically and at least every 12 months. In our view, there is a real risk that large companies will infiltrate this loophole by deciding to switch suppliers on a regular basis. … The Movement Impact France therefore calls on Members of the European Parliament and the governments of the Member States of the European Union to ensure that companies’ due diligence requirements actually apply throughout their value chain'.

The entity criticises reliance on contractual clauses to discharge due diligence obligations, viewing it as a major loophole enabling avoidance of real accountability.

It states that 'the European Commission allows companies to base their duty of care on the use of generic contractual clauses. ... thus relieving themselves of the verification process on third parties in order to fulfil the duty of vigilance. In practice, this would mean that companies’ liability could be limited to their co-contractors, and thus to the leading supplier, while human rights and environmental violations often take place in several places later in the supply chain. It would then become very simple for giants to pass through the meshes of the net and to place a “clean” supplier at the forefront of their production chain'.