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 Company is in favour of a "principle-based approach" for due diligence duty.
The Company agrees with the definition provided by the consultation in regards to what due diligence duty entails and is in favour of a "principles-based approach" with specific guidance for the garment sector.
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 Company is in favour of DD for companies in all sectors and sizes, and contributes with suggestions for facilitating implementation in SMEs
The response to question 15.a was in favour of "principles-based approach" which "should be applicable across all sectors"- In Question 16 it clarifies that "SMEs should be subject to lighter requirements", (i.e. also the "minimum process and definitions" approach as indicated in question 15). It also adds that SMEs should have: "capacity building support, including funding; Toolbox/dedicated national helpdesk for companies to translate due diligence criteria into business practices". Finally, it also states that: 'it is important to note that many will need a timely transition period, and support, through effective guidance and incentives ...'.
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 Company is in favour of using all three mechanisms suggested by the consultation.
In response to question 19a regarding enforcement mechanisms, the Company considers it appropriate to implement the three suggested mechanisms: judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm, supervision by competent national authorities based on complaints about non-compliance with DDD with effective sanctions, and also having a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination to ensure consistency.
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.
The Company is not against obligation for companies but is against linking obligation to specific directors.
In Question 19a, when asking about enforcement mechanisms, the Company is in favour of judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused, but the Company clarifies that: 'the enforcement mechanism should be focused on the company, and not the director'. Also, although question 6 does not ask directly about human rights impacts, it asks whether directors should be required to manage risks for the Company in relation to stakeholders and their interests, which may include impacts on them. The Company's response is "I disagree to some extent", clarifying that: 'C&A is not favourable of making this a legal mandatory action for the company director.' It also disagrees 'to some extent,' in question 7 on whether corporate directors should be required by law to set up procedures to ensure possible risks and impacts are identified, prevented and addressed.
Require companies to provide remedy for human rights impacts they have caused or contributed to.
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 Company is in favor of judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling DD.
Regarding question 19.a, the enforcement of obligations, the Company's choice includes all 3 options: 1) "Judicial enforcement with liability in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence obligations" (which include remedy); 2) "Supervision by competent national authorities based on complaints (and/or reporting, where relevant) about non-compliance with setting up and implementing due diligence measures, etc. with effective sanctions (such as for example fines);" 3) "Supervision by competent national authorities (option 2) with a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination to ensure consistency throughout the EU;"
Require companies to exert leverage on and/or provide support to their counterparties in the remediation of human rights impacts that are linked to company activities through their business relationships (e.g their value chains).
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.
Assuming the company is in favour of supporting their counterparts, but no explicit mention found of supporting the actual provision of any remedy.
The Company agrees with the DDD (Due Diligence duty) made by phase 2 of the consultation before question 14. This includes preventing, mitigating and accounting for human rights impacts, and includes business relationships (suppliers and subcontractors). Although there is no specific reference to remedy, the Company is in favour of: "judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling DD obligations".
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 Company is in favor of judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling DD.
To question 19.a regarding the enforcement of obligations, the Company's choice includes all 3 options: 1) "Judicial enforcement with liability in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence obligations" (which include remedy); 2) "Supervision by competent national authorities based on complaints (and/or reporting, where relevant) about non-compliance with setting up and implementing due diligence measures, etc. with effective sanctions (such as for example fines)"; 3) "Supervision by competent national authorities (option 2) with a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination to ensure consistency throughout the EU."
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 Company is in favour of due diligence processes but not explicitly covering all the issues required by the indicator.
The Company agrees with the definition of DDD provided by the phase 2 consultation and is in favour of a "principles-based approach" for all companies and sectors, but the response does not refer to the upstream chain (definition only goes downstream), nor improving "that practice over time".
Require assessment and additional action (e.g. capacity building or monitoring of suppliers) where the risks for severe human rights impacts are greatest.
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.
-- no text --
--no extract--
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 Company opposes to legal mandatory action for company directors and considers that legal requriements would be difficult and burdensome to enforce.
The Company considers relevant the interest of employees, persons and communities affected both by the Company and its supply chain. It, however, disagrees "to some extent" with the requirement that "corporate directors should be required by law" to "identification of company's stakeholders and their interests" (Question 6.a of the phase 2 consultation). Although the question asks about director's duties, the Company seems to oppose to make this a legal requirement at all: 'C&A is not favourable of making this a legal mandatory action for the company director. The necessary methodology or specific focus will evolve from and within companies, which would make legal requirements difficult and burdensome to enforce'.
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 Company opposes the measures for practical reasons.
The Company, when asked about this in question 20.a, states that it disagrees to some extent, adding that: 'It is in the interest of the company and its director to have a sound and comprehensive risk management system in place, including stakeholder consultation channels. However, this is a company-specific task as the number and geographical distribution of stakeholders may vary significantly from sector to sector and company to company and change over time. Thus, different consultation channels would have to be applied to specific situations. We are concerned that it would be difficult for the legislators to properly address this complexity and any mandatory legislation would risk to be impractical'.
Require that human rights risks and impacts should be assessed through dialogue with stakeholder or with their legitimate representatives.
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 Copany does not directly address this aspect of stakeholder engagement. It does, however, oppose to making mandatory identification of stakeholders and their interests.
The response to phase 2 of the consultation includes an explanation of the company's stakeholder engagement process methodology. Although it indicates that 'we include our stakeholders in the implementation process of new strategies and programs,' no further details were found, and it is not clear whether they position in favour or against this requirement. The Company, however, does position itself against making it legally mandatory to identify stakeholders and their interests (considers it difficult and burdensome to enforce).
Require that action plans are developed in consultation with affected 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 Company does not directly address this aspect of stakeholder engagement. It does, however, oppose to making mandatory identification of stakeholders and their interests.
The response to phase 2 consultation includes an explanation of the Company's stakeholder engagement process methodology. Although it indicates that, 'we include our stakeholders in the implementation process of new strategies and programs' no further details were found, and not clear whether they position in favour or against this requirement. The Company, however, does position itself against making it legally mandatory to identify stakeholders and their interests (considers it difficult and burdensome to enforce)
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.
The Company disagrees to some extend when asked about this.
The Company disagrees to some extent with such a requirement. It states that it does: 'undertake these exercises with its own stakeholders on a voluntary bases, C&A is not favourable of making this a legal mandatory action for the company director. The necessary methodology for focus will evolve from and within companies, which would make legal requirements difficult and burdensome to enforce'
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Industry Association | Performance band |
|---|---|
| Cascale | D- |
