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.
The entity celebrates the adoption of mandatory human rights due diligence legislation at the EU level.
"Even though both the CSDDD + FLR have been severely watered down, we’re still (very) happy that both laws have been adopted and that big corporations – including Big Choco! – will finally be held accountable for any human rights + environmental violations.""The Harkin-Engel Protocol showed us that voluntary agreements don’t pave the way for structural change – we need strong legislation. And here we are; the EU has finally raised the floor on human rights. And turning a blind eye is no longer possible."
The entity supports mandatory human rights due diligence legislation at the EU level, and globally.
"At Tony’s, we can’t stress enough how crucial it is for governments to enact laws that hold companies accountable for their supply chains and protect human rights! While legislative due diligence efforts are promising first steps, their success hinges on the ambition and thoroughness of their implementation." "Voluntary measures – like those outlined in the Harkin-Engel Protocol waaay back in 2001 – have proven ineffective in addressing these issues."
The entity supports mandatory human rights due diligence legislation at the EU level.
"We expect the EU to adopt ambitious legislation that will enforce universal human rights and environmental standards by requiring companies to make efforts to identify, cease, prevent, mitigate, monitor (potential) adverse impacts on human rights and the environment. "
The entity has created a petition that calls for the adoption of mandatory human rights due diligence legislation in order to address harms in global supply chains.
"Tony’s calls on all chocolate fans to be part of the ‘Sweet Solution’ and sign its petition to support the need for human rights legislation that holds companies legally accountable for modern slavery and illegal child labor in their supply chains." "Voluntary measures have failed, and self-regulation is clearly not enough."
The entity supports mandatory human rights due diligence legislation at the EU level.
"Tony’s Chocolonely, the company on a mission to make 100% slave free the norm in chocolate, has shared a list of demands with the EU Commission for inclusion in the upcoming corporate accountability and due diligence law. The proposed Directive on Sustainable Corporate Governance will make companies responsible for what happens in their supply chains, directly or indirectly." ... "The list of demands follows Tony’s public petitioning to create legislation against illegal child labor and modern slavery, and their outspoken support of the Lara Wolters report which will form the basis of the new law. Although the EU Parliament voted in favor of the Lara Wolters report in March, the original proposal could be at risk of being watered down as a result of lobbying efforts from lagging companies.
The entity opposes the weakening of ambition as set out in the Omnibus package, and calls for strong due diligence standards to be upheld at the EU level.
Hey #EuropeanCommission, let’s talk plain and simple.. The #Omnibus Package you’re proposing? We can’t accept it. ’Cause it’ll undo years of negotiations to get crucial laws over the line that protect both the planet and basic human rights."At Tony’s, we’ve been loud and clear about the need for mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation, standing side by side with Lara Wolters. We gathered 66k signatures to present to Commissioner Didier Reynders, made noise in Brussels, and signed letters and statements together with the #CocoaCoalition.
The entity celebrates the adoption of mandatory human rights due diligence legislation at the EU level.
In March, the #EUCouncil officially passed both laws. And today, the #EUParliament did the very same. Although they’ve been severely watered down, we’re still (very) happy that big corporations – including Big Choco! – will finally be held accountable for human rights + environmental violations, thanks in large part to our Serious Friend Lara Wolters. Tony’s has been advocating for corporate sustainability legislation since day 1 , gathering 66k signatures to offer to Commissioner Didier Reynders, makin’ noise in Brussels and voicing our support as a member of the Cocoa Coalition. The Harkin-Engel Protocol showed us that voluntary agreements don’t pave the way for structural change – we need strong legislation. And here we are; the EU has finally raised the floor on human rights. "
The entity speaks out about the watering down of the CSDDD and the narrowing of company scope. They continue to keep the momentum up and advocate for strong due diligence legislation.
"While the adoption of the FLR is a very (very) big achievement for human rights and huge in our fight against exploitation in cocoa, the CSDDD didn’t go through as agreed.. And what we have now is a watered-down version, with the scope being reduced by a whoppin’ 70%.. The bitter truth is that only around 5400 EU companies (0.05% of the total) will have to comply and improve their due diligence in their business when the legislation comes into force. And companies with 1,000-3,000 employees won’t have to do so until closer to 2030. A very slow response to a very urgent issue, with the environment and human rights being violated every single day.While the adoption of both laws is a step forward for #humanrights, we’re clearly not there yet. With the EU Council on board we’ve overcome the biggest hurdle, but the EU Parliament still has to pass it. So we won’t stop here. As an SME that already fully complies with both laws, Tony’s will keep leading by example, raising the bar until the EU raises the floor."
The entity calls out the actors that have failed to support the CSDDD and advocate strongly for the passing of an ambitious due diligence law at the EU level.
--no extract--
The entity calls for others to show their support for the EU CSDDD at a critical point in time and to continue to place pressure on Member State representatives.
"This just in: the EU is due to vote on not 1 but 2 (!) legislations that are crucial in ending exploitation in cocoa – the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (#CSDDD) and the Forced Labor Regulation (FLR). An incredible opportunity for real, systematic change on a global level. "While these legislations could be huge, we’re not there yet. They need an extra push to get ’em over the finish line – and that’s where you come in. Shout your support from the (digital) rooftops and let representatives from every EU Member State know that we stand firmly behind these laws."
The entity supports mandatory human rights due diligence legislation at the EU level.
"As the European Commission begins the new mandate, we urge you to uphold and strengthen the EU’s ambitions in supporting responsible businesses and achieving our collective environmental and social targets.""Specifically, we advocate for: ... Strengthening corporate due diligence and addressing forced labour: We support the CSDDD as a key step toward responsible global value chains and urge its rapid and effective adoption.
The entity supports mandatory human rights due diligence legislation at the EU level.
Yesterday, we went to the EU in Brussels to raise the bar with 10 Members of the EU Parliament, voicing our support for both the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and the Forced Labor Regulation" ... "we need the EU Parliament and the Ministers in the Council of the EU to adopt both the CSDDD and FLR as soon as possible. They’re crucial in our fight against forced labor, child labor and deforestation in the cocoa industry.
The entity supports mandatory human rights due diligence legislation at the EU level.
"Yes, an EU legal framework is needed." - "Voluntary, non-binding agreements to end environmental damage and human rights violations in supply chains have failed in the past. (…) We need some serious legislation in West Africa, Europe and, yes, also in the US. We need laws and regulations that turn the voluntary character of all those covenants and feeble agreements into actual obligations.""Companies must know every minute detail of their supply chain, identify the problems and start addressing them. Tony’s Chocolonely is showing such a legal obligation is entirely possible. Let alone the moral duty of companies that are well aware about the high-risk nature of the sector and of the production countries, in terms of human rights and environmental violations."
The entity handed in a petition in order to keep up the pressure and raise awareness about the need for mandatory human rights due diligence legislation at the EU level.
"EU Commissioner for Justice receives massive petition from Tony’s Chocolonely, the company on a mission to make 100% slave free the norm in chocolate, and Dutch Member of the European Parliament Lara Wolters." ... "By delivering the petition, Tony’s Chocolonely wants to keep up the pressure and raise awareness about the crucial need for ambitious human rights and environmental due diligence legislation which is now at risk of being delayed and watered down because of lobbying efforts from lagging companies." “Voluntary programs and sustainability initiatives are simply not enough and too many empty promises have been made by the industry in the past. We need concrete laws to protect human rights!”
The undersigned entity calls for no modifications of the CSDDD to be undertaken i relation to the Omnibus Package Proposal.
"In our view, the current CSDDD represents an important step forward in driving the necessary transformation of the cocoa and chocolate sector and in making human rights and environmental due diligence the norm in global value chains. Through the Cocoa Coalition, we have called for EU-wide due diligence legislation since our joint paper in 2019.""A failure to implement the CSDDD on time would undermine the position of those companies aiming to put in place systems that protect human and labour rights and the environment. It would risk the emergence of a patchwork of national legislation in EU member states, increasing compliance costs without any benefit to the sector or consumers. This would be a major setback to sustainability in global supply chains. In order to prevent more uncertainty and delays, we urge the European Commission to focus on the preparations as required in the CSDDD. We call upon the European Commission not to undertake any modification of the adopted text of the CSDDD, nor to reopen it for renegotiation by the co-legislators."
The signed entities oppose several of the Omnibus proposal's amendments that are aimed at lowering the level of ambition of the CSDDD.
"The undersigned companies and civil society organisations in the cocoa and chocolate sector have consistently supported the principles behind the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) which, we believe, represents an important step forward in driving the necessary transformation of the cocoa and chocolate sector and in making human rights and environmental due diligence the norm in global value chains ... legislation that levels the playing field and makes due diligence the norm is needed.""We welcome the aim of simplifying reporting obligations under the CSDDD and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, but we believe that a number of the proposed amendments to the CSDDD included in the Omnibus proposal ... undermine some of the fundamental aims of the Directive.""The proposed amendment to extend the intervals in which companies need regularly to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of their due diligence measures from one year to five years risks critically undermining the impact of the CSDDD. The extent and nature of risks to human rights and the environment can change and emerge at speed, and for a risk-based approach to be effective companies need regularly to review and if necessary, adjust their due diligence systems. We suggest that this amendment should be dropped, and the one-year interval reinstated."
The undersigned entity supports an EU wide due diligence regulation.
"EU legislation and actions could make a real difference to cocoa farmers and their countries, if properly and fairly implemented and enforced.""Key priorities: Ensuring that the European Commission and EU member states do all they can to ensure the full implementation of the CSDDD."
The statement expresses support for the Commission’s due diligence rules and urges that the legislation not be reopened or delayed in its implementation.
‘We, the 40 undersigned companies, would like to stress that we are ready to implement the CSRD, CSDDD and Taxonomy effectively. We are writing to you to express our support for the European Union’s sustainability and due diligence rules. (…) Reopening or postponing these crucial pieces of legislation would negatively affect us for (…)’. We call upon the Commission to not reopen and renegotiate already agreed and adopted legal texts. While we support efforts to avoid imposing unnecessary complexity on companies, (…) we urge you to leave the scope, level of ambition and principles of these laws intact. (…) We strongly request that you follow the established timeline for the transposition and implementation of these crucial laws, and ensure the timely provision of clear guidelines for compliance’.
The entity has signed a joint post opposing the weakening of standards and ambition of due diligence obligations under the Omnibus package.
While some companies and politicians are calling for the postponement or weakening of European sustainability rules, ... dozens of large and small companies, among others, are sounding a different note. ... they call on the European Commission and the government to stick to the pace and level of ambition of legislation from the omnibus package: CSRD, CSDDD and the EU taxonomy.*text translated, original language Dutch
The undersigned entity strongly supports an EU wide due diligence regulation and urges legislators to come to a timely resolution.
"The Cocoa Coalition has consistently supported the proposed EU Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence. We believe that it represents an important step forward in driving the necessary transformation of the cocoa and chocolate sector and in making human rights and environmental due diligence the norm in global value chains. We called for EU-wide due diligence legislation in the first position paper we published, in 2019.Accordingly, we urge support for finalising the text of the Directive as soon as possible and before the end of the current EU legislative term. Failure to do so would undermine the position of those companies aiming to put in place systems that protect human and labour rights and the environment. It would risk the emergence of a patchwork of national legislation in EU member states, increasing compliance costs without any benefit to the sector or consumers. This would be a major setback to sustainability in global supply chains."
Following the agreement of text of the CSDDD in December 2023, the signed entities urge the EU for timely approval and implementation of the CSDDD.
"The Cocoa Coalition ... welcomes the conclusion of a political agreement on the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) on 13 December 2023. We believe that it represents an important step forward in driving the necessary transformation of the cocoa and chocolate sector, and in making due diligence the norm in global value chains. We reiterate the critical importance of approving the CSDDD as soon as possible and before the end of the current EU legislative term. Failure to do so would significantly undermine the establishment of a level playing field across the European Union, lead to a fragmentation of national approaches and result in a major setback to sustainability in global supply chains."
The signed entities support the introduction of mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation at the EU level.
"Today, a coalition of stores, businesses, and business federations express their support for a regulation that would require companies to be accountable for the impact they have on the environment and human rights throughout the value chain. It has been a lengthy process, and European negotiations are at a crucial stage. The Member States of the European Union hold the keys and must decide on their final green light for the political agreement that has been meticulously negotiated in favor of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). As progressive businesses, we hope that the process initiated can achieve its goal, and we wish to explicitly express our support for this important initiative that will add to the creation of the necessary ‘playing field’ towards sustainable value chains."
The signed entities proactively call on EU MEPs to vote in favour of the CSDDD and support it being passed into legislation.
"Dear MEPs, On April 24, the European Parliament will vote on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), the European law that can ensure companies address issues in chains around human rights and the environment. Companies united in the Sustainable and Responsible Business Initiative (IDVO), support the CSDDD and therefore ask you to vote for this law on April 24. ... Although the CSDDD's final text is less ambitious than we had hoped, passing this law is an essential step in making corporate social responsibility the norm."
The letter expresses direct and repeated support for the approval of the CSDDD, praising the balance achieved in the political agreement and its alignment with international standards. The signatories also express concern about the risk of the directive being rejected at this final stage.
The statement indicates: “The political compromise on the CSDDD from December last year is based on the UN and OECD standards and thus builds on guidelines that responsible companies have been using as a reference for years. In our view, the requirements of the CSDDD are appropriate and feasible.” “We are very concerned that German support for the CSDDD could still be withdrawn in the final approval process.” “We expect Chancellor Olaf Scholz to secure this democratically achieved compromise and thereby provide companies with legal certainty and fair competitive conditions.”
The entity cautions against deregulation of sustainability legislation including the CSDDD.
"(…) Additionally, new laws on corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence promote greater climate ambition and transparency on environmental action, and create a level playing field by also applying to foreign companies active in the EU. Implementing these laws requires time, resources and effort by businesses, as well as trust that investments undertaken to get ready for the application of these laws are not in vain. Deregulation, whether through lowering environmental or social standards, reneging on international commitments, or reducing the EU’s climate ambition, threatens the stable and predictable legal framework that we depend on. We urge the European Commission to support businesses in successfully implementing existing and upcoming environmental standards — by prioritising smart implementation ...
The joint statement shows support for the legal framework on due diligence irrespective of diverging views on certain aspects.
The joint statement indicates that 'While we hold diverging views on certain aspects of the law, we are aligned in recognising the necessity of a common EU wide legal framework, as part of a smart and coherent mix of policy and legislative measures. We therefore urge the co-legislators to reach a political agreement in view of adopting the final version of the law ... We commend the co-legislators’ efforts in current negotiations toensure that the CS3D follows a risk-based approach and builds on existing globally recognised due diligence standards, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises ... Key elements of this risk-based approach include the recognition of different modes of involvement with adverse impacts and allowing companies to prioritise the most severe and likely ones'.
The signatory organizations express clear support for the mandatory nature of due diligence, highlighting its importance for tangible outcomes in human rights, environmental protection, and climate action, as well as its role in establishing mandatory standards beyond sustainability disclosure.
“The CSDDD holds huge promise for leveling the playing field... as well as driving better outcomes for people and planet through global value chains.” “We support the CSDDD and the process to adopt an ambitious final law.” “The Directive should complement mandatory sustainability disclosure with substantive due diligence duties on human rights and environmental impacts…”
The undersigned entity welcomes the publication of the CSDDD and calls for strengthening of the regulation.
"The signatories to this position paper welcome the publication of the proposed EU Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (COM(2022)71). We believe that the proposed Directive, alongside the proposed Regulation on Deforestation published in November 2021, represents an important step forward in driving the necessary transformation of the cocoa and chocolate sector, among many other areas of activity. We called for legislation for both these approaches to due diligence in the first position paper we published in 2019, and in our more detailed position paper published in October 2021.""We believe that the Directive could be further strengthened in a number of important respects ... partnerships agreements in the cocoa sector, ... due diligence process and business relationships, ... purchasing practices, ... material scope: human rights and environmental criteria, ... company size, ... engagement with stakeholders, ... due diligence process, ... access to justice, ... sectoral guidelines"
By endorsing this joint statement, the entity demonstrates unequivocal support for the establishment of mandatory due diligence legislation on human rights and environmental issues. The letter reinforces the urgency of adopting the legal text and the central role that regulation must play. The entity publicly supports the mandatory nature of the legislation and its alignment with international standards (UNGPs, OECD), which directly corresponds to the scope of indicator Q1.1. The language used reflects a proactive and affirmative stance.
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 undersigned entity supports an EU wide due diligence regulation.
"A crucial element of an EU strategy to achieve this aim is the introduction of mandatory EU-wide due diligence legislation, including the cocoa sector – as we argued in our first joint position paper on the EU’s policy and regulatory approach to cocoa, in December 2019. This would help to create a framework for the sustainable and responsible consumption of cocoa (and other products) within the EU, the world’s largest consumer of cocoa and chocolate."
The undersigned entity supports an EU wide due diligence regulation
"Consistently with the position we announced in 2019, the signatories to this position paper believe that the introduction of mandatory EU-wide due diligence legislation can have a positive impact in driving the necessary transformation of the cocoa and chocolate sector. We therefore call on the European Commission to bring forward two pieces of legislation. We call on DG Justice & Consumers to finalise proposals for human rights and environmental due diligence across companies’ entire operations and supply chains." "We recognise the valuable role that national and international standards, including those in certification schemes, and other voluntary initiatives, can play in assisting companies, including those in the cocoa sector, to ensure that they meet these obligations. Adherence to a standard by itself, however, is not a substitute for an effective system of due diligence." "We believe that this is necessary in order to achieve sector-wide change; to create a level playing field and consistency for companies operating in the sector; to identify the actions necessary to tackle unsustainable practices; and to hold companies accountable for failure to conduct due diligence in their supply chain, consistent with international standards, to identify, address and report on risks to human rights and the environment. Addressing human rights and environmental risks includes preventing and mitigating potential adverse impacts and remediating actual adverse impacts when companies cause or contribute to them." "We welcome the two processes currently under way within the European Commission to introduce legislative proposals for due diligence." "The due diligence obligation outlined in the cross-sectoral human rights and environmental due diligence legislation should be rooted in existing international frameworks, including in particular the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and should be in alignment with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct and the OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains." "Implementing the due diligence obligation should not be a tick-box exercise; it should, rather, stimulate a continuous process of improvement in addressing human rights and environmental risks."
Based on the joint letter “Support for EU framework on mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence,” signed by this entity: “We... welcome the announcement by the European Commissioner for Justice... that the European Commission will launch a legislative initiative on mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence.” “Mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence is key to ensure that efforts by companies that respect people and the planet... are not undercut by the lack of a uniform standard...” “Legislation introducing an obligation to conduct due diligence as defined by the UNGPs... is critical to bring all companies to the same standard...”
The statement, demonstrates clear and direct support for the creation of mandatory legislation on human rights and environmental due diligence, recognizing the importance of standardizing business conduct. The statement actively supports the creation of a binding directive on due diligence, advocating for it as essential to establishing a uniform and competitive standard.
The undersigned entity makes proactive calls for the publication of an EU wide due diligence regulation
"An essential component of the regulatory and policy framework designed to secure the long-term sustainability of the cocoa supply chain is an EU regulation placing a due diligence obligation on all companies that place cocoa or cocoa products on the EU market." "We believe that this is necessary in order to achieve sector-wide change; to create a level playing field and consistency for companies operating in the sector; to identify the actions necessary to remove unsustainable practices; and to hold all actors accountable for any failure to apply due diligence in their supply chain, consistent with international standards, to identify and address adverse impacts on human rights and the environment." "An EU-wide regulation would have benefits for companies in the cocoa supply chain, providing a common framework through which they can show how they are seeking to identify and mitigate human rights and environmental risks. It would eliminate free riders and close loopholes, ensuring a level playing field for all companies. In addition, predictability and consistency with a single EU jurisdictional approach – rather than with many different systems at member-state level – would significantly increase legal certainty for companies and enhance the possibility to act at scale and in a consistent manner among different actors of the supply chain." "The due diligence obligation should be rooted in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011." "In line with this commitment, we call on the EU to begin a consultative process around our proposals for an EU-wide due diligence regulation within its first hundred days, aiming for a draft regulation to be published no later than the end of 2020."
Requiring Human rights due diligence of all companies, regardless of sector and size, while still reflecting their individual circumstances.
The entity calls for all companies, regardless of size or sector, to be included within the scope of the CSDDD.
"Such requirements should apply to all companies active in the EU market.""Tony’s Chocolonely calls for an ambitious EU regulation to apply to all companies across all sectors – not just Big Choco.""All companies regardless of size, including SMEs should be in scope."
The entity calls for all companies, regardless of size, to be included within the scope of the CSDDD.
Big or small, all companies must be bound by law. Especially in high-risk sectors such as cocoa.
The entity supports the inclusion of all companies within scope of the Directive, and believes that SMEs should be included.
Q 16: "Sector-specific guidelines including parts specifically targeting SME’s. SME’s leverage their weight by working together with each other (e.g. through their trade associations) and rely on the information and support that their bigger suppliers will need to provide. This is why public reporting obligations are necessary to help SMEs. Tony’s Chocolonely is itself an SME and does not see any obstacles for other SMEs to follow its example and to take their responsibility in terms of respecting Human Rights and the Environment. "
The entity calls for all companies, regardless of size or sector, to be included within the scope of the CSDDD.
"The petition, delivered on June 17, demands governments to hold companies across all sectors accountable by law for human right violations in their supply chains.""Big or small, all companies must be bound by the new law, and apply due diligence in their entire value chain. Especially in high-risk sectors such as cocoa."
The entity cautions against exemptions from sustainability legislations such as the CSDDD based on sector and size.
"Avoiding blanket exemptions of sectors or company sizes which can create unfair competition, harm consumer trust and further complicate supply chains. Given the proportionality principle, EU legislation often already provides longer timeframes and lighter processes for SMEs."
The text asserts that the requirements should apply to all companies and sectors, including the financial sector.
“The due diligence requirements should be risk-based and apply to the entire spectrum of risks and impacts across the full value chains of companies in all sectors, including financial institutions…”
Based on the document "EU Business Statement – February 2022," in which the entity is listed as a signatory, it states: “All businesses established in the EU and/or active on the internal market, including financial actors, and regardless of size, should be covered by mHREDD legislation.” “Many European SMEs... acknowledge that responsibility... is not a matter of company size...”
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 undersigned entity supports requiring human rights due diligence of all companies regardless of sector or size, recognising the additional support needs of SME's. The undersigned entity calls for the inclusion of companies larger than micro-enterprises in all sectors to be covered by the Directive.
"We also welcome the many references to the need for support for SMEs affected by the Directive (which should encompass SMEs outside the EU as well as inside)""As we have argued in our previous paper: ‘As recognised in the UN Guiding Principles, the responsibility to respect human rights applies to all companies regardless of their size, sector, operational context, ownership or structure … the human rights and environmental due diligence legislation should apply to all companies registered or operating in the EU regardless of their legal form or size, including state-owned enterprises. We recognise that smaller companies may possess simpler supply chains. We do not believe, however, that these companies should be exempted from the due diligence obligation. In a very fragmented end market, the inclusion of smaller players is critical to establish a level playing field and to ensure that all companies do their part and work closer together to improve the sustainability of the cocoa sector.’""Accordingly, we believe that all companies larger than micro-enterprises (defined as companies which employ fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed €2 million) in all sectors should be covered by the requirements of the Directive. (This is consistent with the position we have adopted with regard to the Deforestation Regulation.) We recognise that SMEs are likely to need additional support in introducing due diligence frameworks, but there are already several relevant provisions in the existing text. In addition, we suggest an extended implementation period for SMEs from the entry into force of the Directive."
The undersigned entity supports requiring human rights due diligence of all companies regardless of sector or size, recognising the additional support needs of SMEs.
"Both pieces of legislation should be implemented as uniformly as possible across the EU, avoiding a patchwork of different member-state approaches, and should cover companies irrespective of their size" "As recognised in the UN Guiding Principles, the responsibility to respect human rights applies to all companies regardless of their size, sector, operational context, ownership or structure. Nevertheless, the scale and complexity of the means through which companies meet that responsibility may vary according to these factors and with the severity of the adverse impacts. Accordingly, the human rights and environmental due diligence legislation should apply to all companies registered or operating in the EU regardless of their legal form or size, including state-owned enterprises. We recognise that smaller companies may possess simpler supply chains. We do not believe, however, that these companies should be exempted from the due diligence obligation. In a very fragmented end market, the inclusion of smaller players is critical to establish a level playing field and to ensure that all companies do their part and work closer together to improve the sustainability of the cocoa sector."
Based on the joint letter “Support for EU framework on mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence,” signed by this entity: “...legislation introducing an obligation to conduct due diligence as defined by the UNGPs and covering all business actors is critical to bring all companies to the same standard…”“EU-wide cross-sectoral legislation... should harmonise these expectations…”
The letter explicitly advocates that all companies, regardless of sector or size, should be subject to the legislation, reinforcing the idea of a "level playing field." The statement supports the universal application of the regulation, without sectoral or business-size exceptions, fully meeting the indicator.
The undersigned entity supports requiring human rights due diligence of all companies regardless of sector or size, recognising the additional support needs of SME's.
"The regulation should apply to companies regardless of where they are based or registered or their legal form or size." "While all companies should play their part in establishing due diligence throughout the supply chain, we recognise that smaller companies are likely to possess much simpler supply chains and are less likely to be the initial importers of cocoa beans to the EU market. We do not believe, however, that they should be exempted from the due diligence obligation. In a very fragmented end market, the inclusion of smaller players is key to both large-scale impact and consumer trust."
Implementing an enforcement mechanism where companies fail to carry out due diligence as described.
The entity calls for strong enforcement of the Directive, both at the national and EU level.
"Legislation should be respected, enforced and implemented by EU member state government agencies with sufficient powers, resources and expertise. Not complying with the due diligence obligations should carry legal consequences for a company. " "Require that Member States put in place effective administrative sanctions, civil liability regimes and guarantee access to justice in EU courts. This includes victims being guaranteed access to remedies." "No sanction should lead to divestments that affect farmers or workers, prevent remedies or cause stopping activities. Non-compliant companies should be sanctioned and held liable under the new EU law. Penalties specified in the legislation should be proportionate and dissuasive, in order to help ensure that the due diligence obligations drive real change in the sector."
The entity calls for adequate enforcement of the Directive, both at the national and EU level.
EU member states must take legal action when companies do not fulfil their due diligence obligations, and victims of human rights violations must be guaranteed easy access to justice and remedies in EU courts.
The entity supports monitoring and enforcement of due diligence compliance at the national level, with EU coordination.
Q19a: in response to which enforcement mechanisms should accompany mandatory due diligence, the entity selected "Judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence obligations" as well as "Supervision by competent national authorities (option 2) with a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination to ensure consistency throughout the EU.""A prosecutor should be able to initiate legal steps in a national court in case of caused harm. In addition, there is a need to check on the compliance of due diligence obligations by national authorities, at their own initiative or based on complaints. Access to justice to seek damages and remedy- even as last resort- is crucial for victims of harm. "
The entity calls for adequate enforcement of the Directive, both at the national and EU level.
EU member states must take legal action when companies do not fulfil their due diligence obligations, and victims of human rights violations must be guaranteed easy access to justice and remedies in EU courts.
The joint statement shows support both for administrative enforcement and civil liability.
The joint statement indicates that 'This common standard should be effectively enforced, recognising the need for a balanced combination of administrative enforcement and civil liability, as well as access to justice measures'.
The organizations demand that the directive include administrative oversight and civil liability, demonstrating explicit support for effective enforcement mechanisms.
“The Directive will not be effective without meaningful enforcement… This includes both administrative supervision and civil liability…”
Based on the document "EU Business Statement – February 2022," in which the entity is listed as a signatory, it states: “The requirement needs to be accompanied by legal consequences – encompassing administrative penalties and provisions for civil liability – that will be strong enough to ensure that businesses... carry out HREDD to a high standard...”
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 undersigned entity supports enforcement mechanisms.
"Enforcement of a company’s implementation of its due diligence obligations should take into account the extent of the company’s involvement and leverage over its suppliers"
The undersigned entity supports the enforcement of due diligence obligations.
"The legislation will need to be enforced, and its implementation monitored, by member-state government agencies with appropriate mandates, guidance mechanisms, resources and expertise to evaluate the design, adequacy and implementation of company due diligence systems, based on company and independent audit reports, investigations by the enforcement agencies and other sources of information."
Based on the joint letter “Support for EU framework on mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence,” signed by this entity: "Mandatory legislation can... clarify legal consequences for when responsibilities are not met...”
The statement advocates that the legislation should establish clear legal consequences for non-compliance with due diligence obligations. Implicit support for enforcement mechanisms. Although it lacks detailed specifications (such as civil or administrative sanctions), the acknowledgment of the importance of legal consequences justifies a positive score
Including in the duties of directors and company law obligations to avoid human rights impacts or “harms”.
The entity supports making it a legal requirement for directors to set up procedures to ensure that human rights risks and impacts are identified, prevented and addressed.
Q7: selected "strongly agree" to legally requiring directors to set up adequate procedures to ensure that possible risks and adverse impacts on stakeholders are identified, prevented and addresssed. "To achieve an equitable outcome for current and future generations, we need clear legal frameworks to deliver benefit to all, not just a few. If a mandatory obligation to include and balance stakeholder interests in the decision making process of directors of companies becomes the law in the EU, then it will become necessary for directors to create appropriate processes and KPIs to implement and measure the impacts on stakeholders and to avoidnegative impacts where it is pssible."Q6: selected "strongly agree" to legally requiring corporate directors to "1) identify the company's stakeholders and their interests" and "2) to manage the risks for the company in relation to stakeholders and their interests, including on the long run."
Based on the document "EU Business Statement – February 2022," in which the entity is listed as a signatory, it states: “HREDD should also be embedded in appropriate governance and accountability structures, including at board level.”
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.
Require companies to provide remedy for human rights impacts they have caused or contributed to.
The entity calls for the CSDDD to require companies to provide for or cooperate with remediation processes.
A company should be held accountable for harm inflicted through its value chain on citizens – such as farmers or vulnerable persons and communities - and private organizations and provide remedy. ... Due diligence legislation should require companies to provide for or cooperate with remediation mechanisms when appropriate, based on their connection to the impacts. "
The entity supports companies being required to provide remedy and calls for the EU to strengthen its definition of due diligence to include adequate processes for remediation.
Q14: Calls to enhance the EU's definition of due diligence from "a legal requirement for companies to establish and implement adequate processes with a view to prevent, mitigate and account for human rights..." to, "A legal requirement for companies to establish, to monitor, to publicly report and to implement adequate processes into their policies and management systems with a view to prevent, mitigate, account for, and remedy for adverse human rights..."Q19a: "A prosecutor should be able to initiate legal steps in a national court in case of caused harm ... Access to justice to seek damages and remedy- even as last resort- is crucial for victims of harm.""Legislation should push companies to engage and resolve (address, as well as remediate environmental and human rights issues) rather than to disengage (abandon or avoid high-risk sourcing areas) from high risk production areas."
Based on the document "EU Business Statement – February 2022," in which the entity is listed as a signatory, the company states: "To level and harmonise the playing field in practice, the requirement needs to be accompanied by legal consequences – encompassing administrative penalties and provisions for civil liability – that will be strong enough to ensure that businesses falling within the personal scope of the legislation carry out HREDD to a high standard and that those that are harmed have access to remedy."
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 undersigned entity welcomes provisions to enable remedy for human rights impacts.
"As we argued in our 2021 due diligence paper, the Directive should require member states to fulfil the provisions of the UN Guiding Principles whereby states must take appropriate steps to ensure those affected by abuses have access to effective remedy through judicial, administrative, legislative and other appropriate means, including provisions for civil liability.""We welcome ... provisions to enable access to effective remedy, including civil liability""If a company has caused or may cause an adverse impact, it should cease, prevent or mitigate the impact and remediate any harm if the impact has occurred.""... It should also contribute to remediating the harm if the impact has occurred, to the extent of its contribution."
The undersigned entity supports provisions to enable remedy for human rights impacts.
"Addressing human rights and environmental risks includes preventing and mitigating potential adverse impacts and remediating actual adverse impacts when companies cause or contribute to them." "The legislation should therefore require companies to demonstrate that they are taking effective steps, through a risk-based approach, to prevent, identify, address, mitigate and remediate potential and actual negative impacts" "Principles, companies should be expected to take appropriate action depending on their involvement in adverse impacts, and to work together with affected stakeholders, including farmers, local communities and governments: If a company has caused or may cause an adverse impact, it should cease, prevent or mitigate the impact and remediate any harm if the impact has occurred ... It should also contribute to remediating the harm if the impact has occurred, to the extent of its contribution." "In order to fulfil these obligations, the legislation should require companies to provide for or cooperate with remediation mechanisms when appropriate, based on their connection to the impacts."
The undersigned entity welcomes provisions to enable remedy for human rights impacts
"In accordance with the elements listed above, the regulation should require companies to provide for or cooperate with remediation mechanisms when appropriate, based on their connection to the impact; as described in the OECD Guidelines for Responsible Business Conduct"
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).
Based on the document "EU Business Statement – February 2022," in which the entity is listed as a signatory, it states: "The legislation should reflect the wide spectrum of avenues, including adjustments to own purchasing practices, to effectively influence and enable business partners as well as increase leverage if needed, rather than honing in narrowly on the extent to which a company can deploy contractual or commercial leverage."
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 undersigned entity supports exerting leverage to provide support with other parties
"the Directive should be consistent with the UN Guiding Principles, which encourage companies to take a risk-based approach and prioritise their efforts on the basis of: (1) the severity of the actual or potential harm to people and the environment; and (2) the extent of companies’ leverage over their suppliers.""Accordingly, and in line with the UN Guiding Principles, companies should be expected to take appropriate action to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for their adverse human rights and environmental impacts depending on their involvement and the extent of their leverage on their suppliers: ... • If a company has contributed or may contribute to an adverse impact, it should cease, prevent or mitigate its own contribution to the impact, and use or increase its leverage with other parties to prevent or mitigate it.""If a company has not caused or contributed to an adverse impact, but its operations, products or services may be linked to an impact through a business relationship, it should use or increase its leverage with other parties, including suppliers, to seek to prevent or mitigate the impact."
The undersigned entity supports exerting leverage to provide support with other parties.
"Accordingly, and consistently with the UN Guiding Principles, companies should be expected to take appropriate action depending on their involvement in adverse impacts, and to work together with affected stakeholders, including farmers, local communities and governments: ... If a company has contributed or may contribute to an adverse impact, it should cease, prevent or mitigate its own contribution to the impact, and use or increase its leverage with other parties to prevent or mitigate it. If a company has not caused or contributed to an adverse impact, but its operations, products or services may be linked to an impact through a business relationship, it should use or increase its leverage with other parties, including suppliers, to seek to prevent or mitigate the impact."
Require companies to provide grievance mechanisms for all stakeholders including those in the value chain.
The entity supports the inclusion of explicit grievance mechanism provisions in due diligence legislation.
"As described in the UNGP and OECD Guidelines, grievance mechanism should provide routes through which impacted stakeholders, rights-holders and their representatives can bring complaints to the attention of companies and seek to have them addressed through a variety of non-judicial and judicial mechanisms." "The legislation should ... provide for independent grievance and complaints mechanisms."
The entity supports making it a requirement for companies to have a complaints mechanism as part of their due diligence obligations.
Q20a: selected "strongly agree" to requiring 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"20c: selected that a "complaint mechanism as part of due diligence" should be "promoted at EU level."
The undersigned entity supports the provision of grievance mechanisms for stakeholders.
"Operational-level grievance mechanisms that are accessible to stakeholders should therefore be established at company level, as described by the UN Guiding Principles, to help to provide early-stage resolution of problems."
The undersigned entity supports providing remediation mechanisms.
"... the regulation should require companies to provide for or cooperate with remediation mechanisms when appropriate, based on their connection to the impact; as described in the OECD Guidelines for Responsible Business Conduct, these provide routes through which impacted stakeholders, rights-holders and their representatives can bring complaints to the attention of companies and seek to have them addressed through a variety of non-judicial and judicial mechanisms."
Require companies to actively engage, consult and involve rights-holders at all stages of the remediation process.
Based on the document "EU Business Statement – February 2022," in which the entity is listed as a signatory, it states: gement with affected stakeholders – those people that are at risk of negative impacts from business activity. Listening to the voices of workers, community members and others is vital to a company’s understanding of risks to people and planet and strengthens its due diligence. To ensure that the EU legislation encourages people-centric HREDD, robust engagement with affected groups, workers and other relevant stakeholders including unions and human rights and environmental defenders should inform all stages of the required due diligence process. Engagement must also be safe, so that those speaking out can do so without suffering or fearing retaliation."
The entity 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.
The undersigned entity supports consultation with and involvement of rightsholders throughout the remediation process.
"Accordingly, and consistently with the UN Guiding Principles, companies should be expected to take appropriate action depending on their involvement in adverse impacts, and to work together with affected stakeholders, including farmers, local communities and governments ... In order to fulfil these obligations, the legislation should require companies to provide for or cooperate with remediation mechanisms when appropriate, based on their connection to the impacts."
Enabling judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence obligations.
The entity supports comprehensive civil liability provisions; and calls for the reversal of the burden of proof in cases of non-compliance with due diligence obligations.
"For enforcement and liability to be effective, it will be key that EU law provides an adequate legal framework that guarantees clear and swift access to justice in EU courts to victims in civil liability cases. " "Companies are liable for any harm arising out of potential or actual adverse impacts on human rights and the environment that a company, or undertakings under its control, have caused or contributed to by acts or omissions. ... Non-compliance of the due diligence obligations is evidence of negligent conduct by a company and is relevant to determine whether it caused or contributed to such harm. Non-compliance should result in a reversal of proof in the scope of civil liability cases: the business will have to bear the burden of clarifying the nature of its relationship with the entities involved in the harm and show that it took all reasonable and proportionate measures to prevent the harm from occurring (e.g. based on the size of the company, the nature of operations and the risks of adverse impact in a certain sector or country). Nonetheless, conducting due diligence does not absolve business automatically from liability for causing such abuses."
The entity supports judicial enforcement of due diligence duties as a crucial part of access to justice for those impacted by harms.
Q19a: in response to which enforcement mechanisms should accompany mandatory due diligence, the entity selected "Judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence obligations.""A prosecutor should be able to initiate legal steps in a national court in case of caused harm ... Access to justice to seek damages and remedy- even as last resort- is crucial for victims of harm. "
Based on the document "EU Business Statement – February 2022," in which the entity is listed as a signatory, it states: "To level and harmonise the playing field in practice, the requirement needs to be accompanied by legal consequences – encompassing administrative penalties and provisions for civil liability"
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 undersigned entity supports judicial enforcement particularly civil liability.
"As we argued in our 2021 due diligence paper, the Directive should require member states to fulfil the provisions of the UN Guiding Principles whereby states must take appropriate steps to ensure those affected by abuses have access to effective remedy through judicial, administrative, legislative and other appropriate means, including provisions for civil liability.""The extent of civil liability should take into account the extent of a company’s involvement""we welcome... provisions to enable access to effective remedy, including civil liability"
The entity demonstrates support for civil liability provisions in mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation.
"The legislation should also require member states to fulfil the provisions of the UN Guiding Principles whereby states must take appropriate steps to ensure those affected by abuses have access to effective remedy through judicial, administrative, legislative and other appropriate means, including provisions for civil liability."
The undersigned entity supports including civil liability in the Directive.
"The absence or lack of a legally compliant company due diligence system should carry legal consequences which should be proportionate and dissuasive; this will help ensure that the due diligence system drives real change in the sector."
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.
The entity supports full coverage of the value chain in the EU Directive.
Q14: in relation to the definition of value chain - "we largely agree with the definition proposed here"Q15: selected option 3, "minimum process and definitions approach", in response to the content of corporate due diligence duties. "Option 3 is the most robust option and maximizes legal certainty through alignment with recognized treaties, guidance and guidelines by providing common EU definitions and make them binding."
The signed entities oppose the Omnibus proposal's attempt to reduce value chain scope to solely direct business partners.
"In particular, the limitation of a company’s due diligence obligations to its direct business partners is not in line with international principles, as described in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights ... The risks of human rights violations and environmental harms occur upstream in the supply chain, in the activities of indirect business partners. Placing the focus of due diligence primarily on a company’s own operations and those of its direct business partners contradicts the risk-based approach described in these international principles, and will lead to significantly less ownership and cooperation along value chains, resulting in limited impacts."
The statement advocates for enforcing due diligence in own operations and 'value chains'.
The statements shows support for the Directive in general, and also states that: 'The Directive aims to harmonise requirements for companies to carry out due diligence in their own operations, subsidiaries and value chains, thereby ensuring an EU-wide level playing field and avoiding market fragmentation. This common standard should be effectively enforced, recognising the need for a balanced combination of administrative enforcement and civil liability, as well as access to justice measures'.
The text clearly states that due diligence should apply to the entire value chain, including both upstream and downstream operations.
"The due diligence requirements should be risk-based and apply to the entire spectrum of risks and impacts across the full value chains of companies in all sectors, including financial institutions, in line with the international standards. The same concepts in those standards that make due diligence feasible in an upstream context – including prioritisation on the basis of severity and the need to look at how a company’s own activities can heighten or reduce risks across value chains – also make it feasible in a downstream context"
Based on the document "EU Business Statement – February 2022," in which the entity is listed as a signatory, it states: “The legislation should oblige businesses to carry out ongoing due diligence proactively and across all their operations and the full value chain.” “The UNGPs set out that a company’s responsibility... extends throughout its business relationships across its full value chain...”
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 undersigned entity supports a due diligence process covering the entire supply chain and calls for a rewording of established business relationships to include the entire supply chain.
"Both the UN Guiding Principles and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance stress the need for due diligence to be risk-based, for companies to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their adverse human rights impacts in their operations and supply chains, prioritising the most salient issues. However, this emphasis on risk is largely absent from the proposed Directive, which focuses instead on business contractual relationships.""On top of this, the Directive restricts the due diligence obligations to entities with whom a company has an ‘established business relationship’ (alongside the company’s own operations and subsidiaries) – a term which is difficult to define precisely and does not feature in the UN Guiding Principles or OECD Due Diligence Guidance. This unduly restricts the reach and impact of the due diligence process. In practice, it is entities in more remote parts of the value chain and with whom companies have less well-established business relationships that are often most likely to be associated with adverse human rights and environmental impacts.""We therefore believe that the restriction to ‘established business relationships’ should either be removed or reworded to make it clear that companies are obliged to conduct due diligence across their entire supply chain. Instead, the Directive should be consistent with the UN Guiding Principles, which encourage companies to take a risk-based approach and prioritise their efforts on the basis of: (1) the severity of the actual or potential harm to people and the environment; and (2) the extent of companies’ leverage over their suppliers.""Accordingly, and in line with the UN Guiding Principles, companies should be expected to take appropriate action to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for their adverse human rights and environmental impacts depending on their involvement and the extent of their leverage on their suppliers: ...""If a company has contributed or may contribute to an adverse impact, it should cease, prevent or mitigate its own contribution to the impact, and use or increase its leverage with other parties to prevent or mitigate it."
The undersigned entity supports risk-based supply chain due diligence and full coverage of upstream activities.
"We call on DG Justice & Consumers to finalise proposals for human rights and environmental due diligence across companies’ entire operations and supply chains." "Companies will be required to assess and where necessary improve their purchasing practices and to work with their subsidiaries, joint ventures and suppliers in producer countries to identify, address and report on any human rights and environmental risks along their supply chains rather than abandon or avoid high-risk sources of cocoa." "We hope to see the legislative initiative on sustainable corporate governance, including corporate due diligence, co-led by DG Justice & Consumers and DG Internal Market, introduce a general obligation on companies to conduct human rights and environmental due diligence across their entire operations and supply chains, while allowing the prioritisation of the most severe risks to people and the environment." "The legislation should therefore require companies to demonstrate that they are taking effective steps, through a risk-based approach, to prevent, identify, address, mitigate and remediate potential and actual negative impacts associated with a failure to address the criteria listed above in Section 2.1, based on the severity of the actual or potential harm to people and the environment, both in their own activities and in their business relationships throughout the supply chain, including in their subsidiaries, joint ventures and suppliers, depending on their involvement"
Require assessment and additional action (e.g. capacity building or monitoring of suppliers) where the risks for severe human rights impacts are greatest.
The undersigned entity is supportive of additional action generally.
"The legislation needs to encourage the establishment of closer and more long-term relationships between companies and their suppliers, including the provision of investment and capacity-building"
Require that companies implement contract clauses and Code of Conduct with business partners clarifying obligations to avoid and to address human rights harms.
The entity supports trying to prevent and mitigate harms, with disengagement as a last resort when this is not possible.
Q3a: "We also believe that prevention and mitigation are more important that ceasing/disengaging (see the OECD 6 steps of Due Diligence). As a last resort, it may be better to disengage from an harmful situations than to perpetuate human rights violations."
The signed entities are opposed to the Omnibus proposal's removal of contractual clauses that outline disengagement as a last resort and call for the reinstatement of stakeholder engagement as a requirement prior to terminating contracts with suppliers.
"The Omnibus proposal removes the obligation to terminate contracts with suppliers when there is no expectation that efforts to prevent or end actual or potential adverse impacts will succeed. We recognise that the obligation to suspend the business relationship remains available, but the requirement to consult with stakeholders before deciding on suspension has been removed. This is problematic because suspending a business relationship can have direct harmful impacts on stakeholders, and their input is crucial to understanding the potential consequences. In practice it will mean that companies will continue disengaging when they want, without being obliged to follow a responsible approach when doing so. We believe that consultation with stakeholders, as defined in Article 3(n) and described in Article 13 of the CSDDD, should be reinstated, and that disengagement is regulated to prevent harmful ‘cut and run’ behaviour."
The statement warns against excessive reliance on contractual clauses, favoring collaboration-based approaches instead
“...rather than top-down policing through an overreliance on contracts and audits. Such an approach simply shifts responsibility...”
Require that companies identify their stakeholders and their interests.
The entity is supportive of requiring companies and their directors to identify its stakeholders and their interests.
Q6: selected "strongly agree" to legally requiring corporate directors to "1) identify the company's stakeholders and their interests" and "2) to manage the risks for the company in relation to stakeholders and their interests, including on the long run."
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.
The entity is supportive of requiring directors to establish and apply consultation channels and mechanisms.
Q20a: selected "strongly agree" to requiring 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"
Require that human rights risks and impacts should be assessed through dialogue with stakeholder or with their legitimate representatives.
There's a support for stakeholder engagement throughout due diligence.
The joint statement indicates that: 'It is important that the Directive integrates stakeholder engagement as a critical component of effective due diligence, recognises the role of trade unions and worker representatives, and promotes effective collaboration between companies, including in the context of industry and multistakeholder initiatives'.
The letter links stakeholder engagement to risk assessment and the effectiveness of the company’s efforts.
"The distinguishing feature of sustainability due diligence is that it depends for its effectiveness and credibility on the perspectives of affected stakeholders. ... Meaningful and safe engagement with affected stakeholders –with special attention to people in vulnerable situations – is central to due diligence."
Based on the document "EU Business Statement – February 2022," in which the entity is listed as a signatory, it states: “Listening to the voices of workers, community members and others is vital to a company’s understanding of risks to people and planet and strengthens its due diligence.”
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 undersigned entity is supportive of stakeholder engagement throughout the due diligence process and calls for clearer recognition of its importance.
"The due diligence process described in the proposed Directive includes a number of references to engagement with stakeholders, but these are limited to consultations with potentially affected groups in gathering information on actual or potential adverse impacts (Article 6(4)), and in developing prevention action plans and corrective action plans (Articles 7(2)(a) and 8(3)(b)); and these consultations are only to take place ‘where relevant’, in the opinion of the company.""We believe that the Directive should more clearly recognise the need for meaningful and continuous engagement with affected stakeholders or their legitimate representatives: an ongoing process of interaction and dialogue between a company and its actually or potentially affected stakeholders that enables the company to hear, understand and respond to their interests and concerns, including through collaborative or joint approaches between a company and its suppliers to ensure a coordinated and coherent dialogue. A stronger requirement for meaningful and continuous engagement should be written into the Directive as part of each stage of the due diligence process. Special efforts should be made to engage with particularly vulnerable groups, including smallholders and indigenous peoples and local communities, and engagement strategies should be gender-sensitive."
The undersigned entity supports meaningful stakeholder engagement.
"The legislation should also specify the importance of meaningful stakeholder engagement in carrying out due diligence: an ongoing process of interaction and dialogue between a company and its actually or potentially affected stakeholders that enables the company to hear, understand and respond to their interests and concerns, including through collaborative approaches." "As outlined in Section 2.2, conducting appropriate due diligence should encourage companies to disclose issues and risks in their supply chains, and to demonstrate the steps they are taking to address them (in cooperation with other stakeholders in the supply chain), rather than encouraging companies simply to abandon or avoid high-risk sources of cocoa in order to manage an increased risk of litigation."
Require that action plans are developed in consultation with affected stakeholders.
There's a support for stakeholder engagement throughout due diligence.
The joint statement indicates that: 'It is important that the Directive integrates stakeholder engagement as a critical component of effective due diligence, recognises the role of trade unions and worker representatives, and promotes effective collaboration between companies, including in the context of industry and multistakeholder initiatives'.
The undersigned entity is supportive of stakeholder engagement throughout the due diligence process and calls for clearer recognition of its importance.
"The due diligence process described in the proposed Directive includes a number of references to engagement with stakeholders, but these are limited to consultations with potentially affected groups in gathering information on actual or potential adverse impacts (Article 6(4)), and in developing prevention action plans and corrective action plans (Articles 7(2)(a) and 8(3)(b)); and these consultations are only to take place ‘where relevant’, in the opinion of the company.""We believe that the Directive should more clearly recognise the need for meaningful and continuous engagement with affected stakeholders or their legitimate representatives: an ongoing process of interaction and dialogue between a company and its actually or potentially affected stakeholders that enables the company to hear, understand and respond to their interests and concerns, including through collaborative or joint approaches between a company and its suppliers to ensure a coordinated and coherent dialogue. A stronger requirement for meaningful and continuous engagement should be written into the Directive as part of each stage of the due diligence process. Special efforts should be made to engage with particularly vulnerable groups, including smallholders and indigenous peoples and local communities, and engagement strategies should be gender-sensitive."
The entity calls for collaborative approaches and cooperation with stakeholders in relation to the steps companies are taking to address adverse human rights impacts.
"The legislation should also specify the importance of meaningful stakeholder engagement in carrying out due diligence: an ongoing process of interaction and dialogue between a company and its actually or potentially affected stakeholders that enables the company to hear, understand and respond to their interests and concerns, including through collaborative approaches." "As outlined in Section 2.2, conducting appropriate due diligence should encourage companies to disclose issues and risks in their supply chains, and to demonstrate the steps they are taking to address them (in cooperation with other stakeholders in the supply chain), rather than encouraging companies simply to abandon or avoid high-risk sources of cocoa in order to manage an increased risk of litigation."
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.
The entity is supportive of requiring directors to manage a company's human rights risks in relation to stakeholders and their interests.
Q6: selected "strongly agree" to legally requiring corporate directors to "1) identify the company's stakeholders and their interests" and "2) to manage the risks for the company in relation to stakeholders and their interests, including on the long run."Q7: selected "strongly agree" to legally requiring directors to set up adequate procedures and where relevant, measurable (science based) targets to ensure that possible risks and adverse impacts on stakeholders ... are identified, prevented, and addressed."
| Legislation | Position |
|---|---|
| EU CSDDD | Supporting |
| Omnibus | Supporting |
| Trade Association | Performance band |
|---|---|
| MVO Nederland | A- |