Nasdaq

The Entity considers that it should be enough to focus on asking companies to follow existing guidelines and standards.

In response to question 2, the entity emphasizes that: ‘Many companies are already engaged in processes and risk management related to supply chains and are following various principles and guidance already’. The entity acknowledges the benefits of the existing guidance, and it will be helpful to develop sectoral guidance. However, the entity thinks that, ‘it seems most efficient to focus on how to put appropriate processes in place.’

In response to question 14, the entity states that: ‘We agree broadly, and we wish to underline that establishing processes is the key feature.’

In response to question 15, the entity has not chosen any options but states that: ‘The EU should focus on cooperating with OECD in establishing the OECD Guidance on due diligence as the EU guidance.’ The entity considers that maintaining one international standard is more helpful.

In response to question 17, the entity agrees that global applications of guidance should apply to the EU as well as other counties, for instance, the US, Asia, and beyond.

The entity is in favour of establishing the OECD Guidance within the EU and maintaining one international standard. The entity considers that micro and small sized enterprises should be excluded and SMEs should be subject to lighter requirements. The entity agrees that due diligence rules should also apply to certain third countries.

In response to question 15, the entity considers that one international standard can be maintained and is more helpful, and global harmonisation in terms of guidance would provide better legal certainty than legal requirements specific for EU.

In response to question 16, the entity believes that a lighter version of OECD’s non-binding guidance could be helpful and considers that all companies should make efforts for due diligence, not only listed companies, regardless of size, type of business, business model and organisations.

In response to question 17, the entity agrees that due diligence rules should also apply to certain third-countries; however, it considers that global harmonisation could start with a scope of the very largest companies.

The entity thinks that due diligence duty should be remain a guideline but not become a mandatory requirement.

In response to question 19a, the entity is in favour of combining due diligence guidance with disclosure rules, while at the same time providing transparency for other stakeholders.

The entity strongly disagrees with a corporate director’s legal duty to identify the company’s stakeholders and interests, to set up procedures, to address possible risks and to balance the interests of all stakeholders.

In response to question 6, the entity states that: ‘These kinds of considerations are already included in many corporate governance codes, which we believe is the right way forward. Legislative measures moving the above-mentioned duties specifically to directors, would be an inappropriate transfer of responsibility from society, to individuals who are not elected by society to carry out such duties.’

In response to question 7, the entity highlights the principles that are already developed by OCED and that they are helpful and should remain the way. The entity suggests the EU to cooperate with the OECD to facilitate international harmonisation.

In response to question 8, the entity strongly agrees that ‘it is a natural part of directors’ duties to balance interests of all stakeholders’. Discussing the entity’s experiences in markets, it emphasizes that: ‘Guidance on this should remain in recommendations related to corporate governance.'

The entity seems to disagree with a mandatory due diligence duty, accompanied by an enforcement mechanism. Instead, the entity thinks it should be guidance and not mandatory requirements.

In response to question 19a, the entity considers that the best way forward is to ‘to combine due diligence guidance with disclosure rules, i.e. comply or explain. This combination allows companies to apply the guidance in a way which they deem most appropriate for their company, while at the same time providing transparency for other stakeholders’.

The entity strongly disagrees with the requirement for directors to establish and apply consultation channels for engaging with stakeholders.

In response to question 20a, the entity agrees that stakeholder involvement may contribute to the better management of a company; however, it disagrees that the EU should add legal requirements. The entity considers possibly developing recommendations in soft law, such as corporate governance codes, would be a more useful way forward where this is not already in place.

In response to question 20c, the entity has not chosen any options but instead postulates that, ‘Employee board representation. Minority shareholders rights’, could be best practice for grievance mechanisms. The entity also points out that many companies have a complaint function already and that whistle-blowing mechanisms can also be useful.

The entity seems to disagree with a mandatory due diligence duty accompanied by an enforcement mechanism. Instead, the entity thinks it should be mere guidance and not a mandatory requirement.

In response to question 19, the entity considers that the best way forward is, ‘to combine due diligence guidance with disclosure rules, i.e. comply or explain. This combination allows companies to apply the guidance in a way which they deem most appropriate for their company, while at the same time providing transparency for other stakeholders.’

The entity disagrees with the idea of an EU legal framework for supply chain due diligence. The entity considers that: ‘it should be enough to focus on asking companies to follow existing guidelines and standards.’

In response to question 2, the entity thinks that: ‘Many companies are already engaged in processes and risk management related to supply chains and are following various principles and guidance already’. The entity considers that the principles should remain guidance, rather than a legislative framework. The entity believes that it would be more helpful to develop existing guidance leading to global harmonisation.

In response to question 15, the entity has not chosen any option but states that, ‘The EU should focus on cooperating with OECD in establishing the OECD Guidance on due diligence as the EU guidance’, and suggests that only one international standard should be applied.

The entity has not chosen any option and thinks that it is not feasible to regulate all interests in a detailed way.

In response to question 5, the entity acknowledges that various stakeholders’ interests contribute towards long-term success; however, it considers that companies have already taken this into consideration and thinks that regulating all of these interests in a more detailed way is not feasible. The entity suggests that further work should aim at ensuring shareholders can engage and use their rights.

The entity strongly disagrees with the requirement for directors to establish and apply consultation channels for engaging with stakeholders.

In response to question 20a, the entity agrees that stakeholder involvement may contribute to better management of a company; however, it disagrees with the notion that the EU should add legal requirements. The entity considers, ‘possibly developing recommendations in soft law, such as corporate governance codes, would be a useful way forward, where this is not already in place.’

The entity strongly disagrees with the idea of there being a director’s legal duty to identify company’s stakeholders and their interests, or setting up procedures to ensure that possible risks and adverse impacts on stakeholders are avoided.

In response to question 6, the entity states that: ‘These kinds of considerations are already included in many corporate governance codes, which we believe is the right way forward.’

In response to question 7, the entity considers that ‘t the principles already developed by OECD on Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct. Such guidance is helpful and should remain the way forward. We encourage the EU to cooperate with the OECD to facilitate international harmonisation in this regard.’