NEI Investments

"Businesses and financial market participants need long-term policy stability to support their implementation efforts. Recent studies, including those published by the EU’s own Platform for Sustainable Finance, are showing that increased transparency created by these regulations is starting to have an impact. ... Initiatives like the Clean Industrial Deal will ensure the long-term competitiveness of Europe's net-zero industry and its economic resilience. ... The CSDDD complements these disclosure tools with essential opportunities for action and behavioral change. ... We support the overall objective of simplifying and improving the coherence of the EU sustainable finance framework. Such revisions can effectively reduce reporting burdens and complexity, while enhancing the usefulness of disclosure requirements and promoting a more coherent approach to the transition across the value chain. However, reopening these regulations in their entirety risks creating regulatory uncertainty and could ultimately jeopardise the Commission’s goal to reorient capital in support of the European Green Deal. ... We therefore support targeted actions by the Commission at the technical level to provide simplification, clarity and consistency across the framework."

‘The undersigned companies and industry associations continue to support the goals of the European Union’s sustainability due diligence … We write now to urge at this critical juncture that you focus on delivering the much-needed practical implementation of these rules. Investment and competitiveness are founded on policy certainty and legal predictability. The announcement that the European Commission will bring forward an “omnibus” initiative that could include revisiting existing legislation risks undermining both of these. … Therefore, we urge the European Commission to publicly clarify that this “omnibus approach,” if embarked upon, will not allow already agreed and adopted legal texts to be reopened for renegotiation. We are particularly concerned about the potential reopening of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), especially as the CSDDD does not introduce any overlapping reporting requirements’

Based on the document "EU Business Statement – February 2022," in which the entity is listed as a signatory, it states: “We... urge the European Commission to adopt a legislative proposal without further delay.” “We firmly believe that strong and ambitious EU legislation would make a tangible contribution to improving human rights and environmental conditions along global value chains...” “Our view has always been that the due diligence expectations set out in the UNGPs and in the OECD Guidelines should form the core requirements on business in HREDD legislation.”

The statement clearly expresses support for the legal mandatory nature of due diligence, considering it essential for the protection of human rights and the environment, as well as for closing gaps left by voluntary approaches. The organization publicly endorses the mandatory implementation of due diligence including the obligation to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for how they address their potential and actual human rights impacts and the ongoing nature of due diligence based on international standards and the inefficacy of voluntary solutions, fully aligning with the indicator.

The document advocates for the legislation to apply to all companies, regardless of size or sector, expressly including SMEs and financial actors. This position represents clear support for the universal scope of the regulation. The entity explicitly supports the universal application of the legislation, recognizing the importance of a level regulatory playing field, including for SMEs.

The document explicitly advocates that the legislation should include all companies, regardless of size or sector, including financial institutions. The statement supports the universal application of the regulation, including SMEs and financial actors, justifying the maximum score.

The entity advocates for the existence of legal accountability mechanisms, including administrative sanctions and civil liability, as a means to ensure the effectiveness of the legislation. There is clear support for the implementation of robust enforcement mechanisms, covering both administrative penalties and civil liability, fully aligning with the scope of the indicator.

The organization advocates for effective regulatory mechanisms with clear legal consequences, indicating support for mandatory enforcement. There is explicit support for the existence of robust legal enforcement to ensure the effective implementation of the legislation.

The letter argues that governance structures, including boards of directors, should integrate due diligence, implying an active role for directors in risk prevention and mitigation. Although the text does not explicitly propose a formal legal obligation for directors, it advocates for their incorporation into governance, justifying a positive score.

The statement advocates for the inclusion of formal responsibilities in boards of directors, reinforcing their role in the governance of due diligence.

Analysis: The text reinforces the importance of corporate accountability and the guarantee of access to remediation for victims of negative impacts, in line with the spirit of the indicator. Score: +1 Justification: Despite being brief, the direct mention of the need for remediation justifies a positive score, as it aligns with the principle of repairing damages caused or contributed to

The statement acknowledges the obligation to remedy damages caused or contributed to, advocating for appropriate compensation mechanisms. Direct support for the principle of remediation, with strong and specific normative language.

The letter explicitly advocates that companies should adopt measures to influence and support their business partners, including adjusting their own purchasing practices, which aligns with the use of leverage for remediation purposes. There is clear and active support for the use of leverage to influence business partners, as outlined in the indicator.

The statement explicitly supports the use of leverage to ensure remediation within its global value chains.

Acciona Energía explicitly supports engagement with affected rights holders as a central part of the due diligence process, including during critical stages such as remediation. The document emphasizes the centrality of meaningful stakeholder engagement and their security, demonstrating full alignment with the indicator.

Support for civil liability as an essential component of the legislation shows direct alignment with the requirement for judicial enforcement. The entity explicitly endorses civil liability with provisions for compensation, justifying the maximum score.

The statement explicitly advocates for civil and administrative liability, aligning with the judicial enforcement framework at an early stage in the legislative process.

The entity fully supports the application of due diligence throughout the entire value chain, as reflected in UN and OECD principles. The statement proposes that the legislation require a continuous and proactive approach, covering direct operations and business relationships. There is clear and normative support for the application of due diligence across the entire chain (upstream and downstream), justifying the maximum score for this indicator.

The statement supports the application of due diligence across the value chain. However, no more detail is provided on the extent of global value chains.

The letter advocates that risk assessment should take place through active listening and dialogue with affected stakeholders, which aligns with the spirit of the indicator. The statement explicitly supports the use of dialogue as a risk assessment tool, justifying the maximum score.

The statement explicitly supports dialogue with stakeholders as part of the due diligence process, including the identification and assessment of risks. Direct and clear support for the dialogic approach to risk assessment, as defined by the indicator at an early stage in the legislative process.