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 entity considers that ‘an EU legal framework is needed’ and agrees with the definition of due diligence.
In response to question 2, the entity states that ‘an EU legal framework is needed’ without further explanation.
In response to question 3, the entity thinks benefits of an EU due diligence duty may go to ‘Ensuring that the company is aware of its adverse human rights, social and environmental impacts and risks related to human rights violations other social issues and the environment and that it is in a better position to mitigate these risks and impacts; Increasing legal certainty about how companies should tackle their impacts, including in their value chain; A non-negotiable standard would help companies increase their leverage in the value chain’.
In response to question 14, the entity considers that ‘the non-financial dimension and a 360 degree impact assessment is helpful…’
In response to question 15, the entity picks up option 1 ‘principles-based approach’, stating that ' A general due diligence duty based on key process requirements… should be defined at EU level regarding identification, prevention and mitigation of relevant human rights, social and environmental risks and negative impact. These should be applicable across all sectors. '
In response to question 17, the entity agrees that due diligence rules should be applied to certain third-country companies.
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 entity chooses option 1 ‘principles-based approach’. However, the entity thinks that ‘SMEs should be subject to lighter requirements’ and due diligence rules should also be applied to certain third-country companies.
In response to question 15, the entity picks up option 1 ‘principles-based approach’, stating that ' A general due diligence duty based on key process requirements… should be defined at EU level regarding identification, prevention and mitigation of relevant human rights, social and environmental risks and negative impact. These should be applicable across all sectors. '
In response to question 16, the entity states that ‘SMEs should be subject to lighter requirements (“principles-based” or “minimum process and definitions” approaches as indicated in Question 15)’.
In response to question 17, the entity states that due diligence rules should also be applied to certain third-country companies.
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 entity is in favour of ‘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); Supervision by competent national authorities (option 2) with a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination to ensure consistency throughout the EU’
The entity picks up option 2 and 3 ‘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); Supervision by competent national authorities (option 2) with a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination to ensure consistency throughout the EU’, without further explanation.
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 entity strongly agrees on directors’ legal duty to identify the company’s stakeholders and their interests, to set up adequate procedures to identity, prevent, and address human rights, social, health and environmental impacts, and to balance the interests of all stakeholders.
The entity strongly agrees on question 6, 7 and 8, stating that corporate directors should be required by law to identify the company’s stakeholders and their interests, to set up adequate procedures to identity, prevent, and address human rights, social, health and environmental impacts, and to balance the interests of all stakeholders.
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 entity is in favour of ‘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); Supervision by competent national authorities (option 2) with a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination to ensure consistency throughout the EU’.
In response to question 19, the entity picks up option 2 and 3 ‘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); Supervision by competent national authorities (option 2) with a mechanism of EU cooperation/coordination to ensure consistency throughout the EU’, without further explanation.
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 entity states that ‘an EU legal framework is needed’, agrees on the definition of due diligence, and considers that impact assessment is helpful to understand risks and opportunities in value chains.
In response to question 3, the entity chooses option1, 4 and 5, stating that ‘Ensuring that the company is aware of its adverse human rights, social and environmental impacts and risks related to human rights violations other social issues and the environment and that it is in a better position to mitigate these risks and impacts; Increasing legal certainty about how companies should tackle their impacts, including in their value chain; A non-negotiable standard would help companies increase their leverage in the value chain’.
In response to question 14, the entity states that ‘the non-financial dimension and a 360 degree impact assessment is helpful to understand risks and oppportunites as well as benefits and burdens of integrated value chains and the complete judgement on prosperity and wealth added for society.’
In response to question 15, the entity choose option 1, stating that ‘Option 1. “Principles-based approach”: A general due diligence duty based on key process requirements (such as for example identification and assessment of risks, evaluation of the operations and of the supply chain…etc.) should be defined at EU level regarding identification, prevention and mitigation of relevant human rights, social and environmental risks and negative impact. These should be applicable across all sectors.’
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 entity strongly agrees on directors’ legal duty to identify the company’s stakeholders and their interests, which implies the entity is supportive for requirements companies to identity stakeholders and their interests.
The entity strongly agrees on question 6, stating that corporate directors should be required by law to identify the company’s stakeholders and their interests.
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 entity strongly agrees on directors’ legal duty to identify the company’s stakeholders and their interests and to set up adequate procedures to identity, prevent, and address human rights, social, health and environmental impacts.
The entity strongly agrees on question 6 and 7, stating that corporate directors should be required by law to identify the company’s stakeholders and their interests and to set up adequate procedures to identity, prevent, and address human rights, social, health and environmental impacts, without further explanation.
| Legislation | Phase of Active Company Engagement | Position |
|---|
| Industry Association | Performance band |
|---|---|
| Associazione Nazionale fra le Imprese Assicuratrici (ANIA) | E- |