The European Commission’s proposal has presented a strong opportunity to drive respect for people and the planet, but the gaps and loopholes must be addressed. Below we share our initial analysis of the proposal, with a focus on its potential to address forced labour. In coming weeks and months, we will publish more in-depth analysis and commentary from ourselves and partners.
Loopholes in accountability for long supply chains?
We welcome [...] that the law covers entire value chains, and includes a parent company and value chain liability regime, including over direct and indirect relationships. However, there are significant loopholes given to companies. The obligation across value chains refers to “established business relationships” – described as “lasting, in view of its intensity or duration”. This is new language – divergent from the UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs) – and opens many questions.
We are concerned that the “established” language could allow companies to evade responsibility for abuses throughout their supply chain, allowing businesses to ignore forced labour where it is harder to immediately identify in their supplier base. The focus on “established” relationships could evenincentivisecompanies to pursue short-term contracts, instead of long-term engagement with suppliers. In many industries, fashion as an example, companies ‘jurisdiction hop’ to find the cheapest prices and often rely on excessive subcontracting, through series of short-term contracts. This is driven by companies’ unrealistic demands to suppliers on pricing and deadlines, and is often where abuses are likely to happen.
We are also concerned that companies will be able to rely on “contractual cascading” (contractual assurances with suppliers and sub-suppliers) to meet their obligation to conduct due diligence across value chains. Companies can then rely on “third-party verification” – i.e. audits and certification – to verify whether suppliers are meeting these contractual obligations, and potentially rely on this to evade liability.
The reliance on contractual cascading and audits could result in companies pushing the burden of compliance onto suppliers, ignoring the role of their own business model and strategies in driving abuses. Social audits are inadequate to address forced labour, and this limitation has been recognised by auditing companies themselves. The law must mandate companies to verify respect of human rights through credible measures, including engagement with suppliers, workers and trade unions and other affected stakeholders – not by creating further commercial demand for the auditing industry.
Only 17,000 companies: not enough accountability
Beyond the broader concerns about the exclusion of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), the list of “high-risk” is hugely limited and misses out some of the highest risk sectors for forced labour. According to the ILO, construction is the highest risk sector for forced labour, after domestic work. Other high-risk sectors, like electronics and PPE, logistics and transport, and hospitality are also missing. Quite simply, this is not enough.
Meaningful stakeholder engagement and inclusion of civil society and trade unions
Alongside our partners, we have always called for the law to require companies to meaningfully engage with affected and potential affected workers and other stakeholders. Although the proposal includes aspects of this, it is arguably one of the weakest focus areas throughout...
The proposal’s lightly worded provision on “complaints mechanisms” is substantially more vague than international guidance on non-judicial grievance mechanisms. It risks creating a new wave of corporate-led approaches to grievance mechanisms, such as company hotlines. Such approaches lack the trust and accountability to facilitate meaningful access to remedy, in particular for workers already in heightened vulnerability. The role of trade unions must be promoted, and workers and other stakeholders must be involved in the design, implementation and monitoring of grievance mechanisms. Further, it is imperative that workers and communities raising grievances are protected from retaliation, noting that the current EU Whistleblower Directive does not cover non-EU human rights defenders.
The proposal also mentions in many places the support that companies, Member States and the European Commission should provide to SMEs and to third-country (non-EU) governments. This is welcome, but we must also see the EU place more recognition on the support which must be given to civil society organisations, trade unions, local communities and vulnerable groups in producer countries, so that they can monitor companies’ compliance and report abuses.
Moving forward: lots more to unpack
There are many more limitations elsewhere in the proposal. Barriers to justice typically faced in corporate accountability cases must still be addressed. We must see much stronger language on addressing unsustainable purchasing practices and business models. Language around disengagement must be in line with the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises’ principles, preventing ‘cut and run’ situations, and must include linked remedy provisions for the victims on the ground.
We will continue to call for the due diligence obligation to be linked to requirements for companies to disclose their supply chains. We also share our environmental peers’ concernsabout the law’s restrictions around environmental and climate change provisions.
We will continue our advocacy over coming months and years to strengthen the proposal, working with civil society and trade unions allies, the European Parliament and supportive businesses to do so.
An alliance of over 60 companies and initiatives are calling on the European Parliament, Commission and EU member states to ensure that living wages and incomes are included in the final corporate sustainability due diligence directive (EU CSDDD) and that their definitions should not be compromised.
OHCHR highlights five areas where they believe further attention and discussion are needed in
order to improve alignment with the UNGPs, and to create an EU regulatory framework that is capable of meeting the EU’s stated goals, including: company scope; subject-matter scope; taking action; compliance, enforcement and remedy; and stakeholder engagement.
While the draft directive has promising elements, we highlight considerable gaps that must be closed to ensure the law can fulfil its historic potential and bring tangible benefits for workers and communities along global value chains (also includes an overview of relevant resources).
The EU's directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence could represent a landmark step forward, but the proposal contains significant flaws which risk preventing its urgently-needed positive impact for people, planet and climate. We join 220+ organisations calling for an effective law.
After a thorough internal analysis of the Directive’s content, as well as external consultations, ASI is now releasing a comprehensive analysis of the proposal for a directive on due diligence, with specific recommendations for the European Parliament and the European Council to strengthen it.
The briefing addresses shortcomings in the parts of the proposal that relate to corporate governance, directors’ obligations and the responsibilities of the financial sector and makes recommendations for appropriate changes.
The coalition successfully campaigned for a supply chain law in Germany. However, due to resistance from the business lobby, this law still has gaps and weaknesses, which is why an even stronger EU supply chain law is needed.
To close women’s month, 82 civil society organizations from across Europe sent an open letter to European Commissioners, Members of Parliament and Permanent Representations involved in the co-legislation of human rights and environmental due diligence legislation, urging them to make sure the gender-responsiveness gap is addressed.
DIHR examines foundational aspects such as personal and material scope, business relationships and the scope of due diligence across the value chain, use of contractual assurances as well as enforcement and liability. It then goes on to consider each element of the due diligence obligation.
Letter sent to President von der Leyen and Commissioners Breton and Reynders by the International Labour Organization, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
With the right framing, a Directive could advance better outcomes for people and planet. However, for these significant opportunities to be realized, and for the Directive to meet its stated ambition, it is critical that the Directive is firmly grounded in the key international standards on sustainability due diligence adopted by the UN and the OECD.
ActionAid International raises concerns about the European Commission's proposal for a Sustainable Corporate Due Diligence Directive, specifically on the lack of inclusion of any reference to women and other marginalised groups
The newly published Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive falls short on involving workers and trade unions in shaping and monitoring sustainable business due diligence strategies, says the European Trade Union Confederation
Frank Bold argues that the EU's legislative proposal on corporate accountability presents just some elements that foster integration of sustainability and long-term thinking in corporate governance rules, creating the risk of a tick-the-box exercise
The EU's proposal falls short on a number of fronts in its promise to promote sustainable business and investor practices and ensure accountability for harms, says the Investor Alliance for Human Rights
The Escazú Agreement and its principles must be integrated into the list of relevant international conventions that companies must comply with as part of the due diligence measures prescribed in the regulation, the organisations write.
Europe needs a Copernican Revolution in corporate behaviour to tackle the climate crisis and social disparities. To do that, the EU should start with clarifying the fundamentals of corporate law, the authors argue.
This compendium contains the contributions of experts that participated in a series of webinars exploring the topic of due diligence and its connections to civil liability, private international law, and sustainable finance, among other topics
The request, made on the 15th December 2021, asked for all correspondence and (e)meetings with stakeholders and members of the RSB, related to the proposal, as well as the RSB opinion and the Commission Impact Assessment.
14 industry associations and responsible business initiatives express their support for the EU’s objective to ensure respect for human rights and the environment through an EU-harmonised regulatory approach to due diligence.
MEPs Lara Wolters, Heidi Hautala, Manon Aubry and Pascal Durand have sent an access to document request to the Commission, requesting access to the 2 opinions of the Commission’s internal quality control body, the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and communication between interest groups and the RSB on the Commission’s Sustainable Corporate Governance initiative.
The European Commission should keep its promises and uphold corporate human rights obligations according to an open letter sent to President Ursula von der Leyen on 8 December signed by 47 civil society and trade union organisations.
In a debate in Parliament Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation announced that due to the "very disappointing" and "indefinite" delays at the European Commission, the Dutch government will immediately start work on ambitious national binding due diligence legislation.
On International Women Human Rights Defenders Day, over 60 civil society organisations sent an open letter to European Commissioners, Members of Parliament, and Council of the European Union Representatives, urging them to make the forthcoming corporate human rights and environmental due diligence law gender-responsive.
The struggle of the Lenca people, of Bertha and her daughter, is only one example of the daily struggle of indigenous and peasant communities to protect land, water sources, forests and our human family from the negative impacts of corporate activities. The upcoming Sustainable Corporate Governance proposal could be a game-changer for communities faced with corporate abuse worldwide.
Campaign calls on Commission Vice-President Věra Jourová, Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders and Commissioner for the Internal Market Thierry Breton to introduce an ambitious legislative proposal on mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence.
In a letter to President von der Leyen, and Commissioners Reynders and Breton, MEPs stressed the importance of addressing barriers to justice for victims of corporate abuse in the upcoming due diligence law proposal
To effectively stop human rights violations and negative environmental impacts in global supply chains, EU policymakers should ensure the upcoming legislation leads to positive impacts for rightsholders and improves the situation and the livelihoods of smallholders.
In her letter to the presidents of EPP, S&D, Renew, GreensEFA and the Left political groups, President Von der Leyen stresses the importance of ensuring consistency in developing a sustainable framework for economic operators, and that the initiative will be adopted in 2021
"By passing world-leading legislation now to ensure transparency, liability for environmental and human rights abuses and remedy for the individuals affected, the EU can point the way to a safer, more sustainable planet, and establish frontrunner status in sustainability and justice" - MEP Toine Manders, European People's Party, and Steve Trent, Environmental Justice Foundation
The note provides recommendations in light of the European Parliament's resolution of 10 March 2021 on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability, focusing in particular on issues connected with the translation of human rights due diligence into a binding legal standard, and on corporate accountability and remedy.
The undersigned Members of the European Parliament sent a letter to President von der Leyen and 13 commissioners reiterating some of the key demands of the European Parliament’s legislative own-initiative resolution regarding the upcoming proposal on Sustainable Corporate Governance.
The briefing follows a public letter sent by NGOs to DG Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders and Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans in support of the EU Commission plans on Sustainable Corporate Governance.
The fate of the proposals on (i) minimising the risk of deforestation and forest degradation associated with products placed on the EU market and (ii) sustainable corporate governance is now unclear, raising concerns among civil society.
Ferrero, Mars Wrigley, Mondelez International, Nestlé, Tony’s Chocolonely & Unilever shared a joint letter to Commissioners Reynders, Breton and Sinkevičius, calling for the adoption of a legislative proposal without further delay.
Eight years on from the Rana Plaza building collapse, many European fashion companies are still linked to human rights abuses on a daily basis. For an EU due diligence law to make a difference, it can’t just be a list of boxes companies must tick.
The organisations call on the EU to ensure that its upcoming legislative measures are effective and fully uphold their rights as set out in international law, and in line with the EU’s own commitments.
EU Financial Stability Commissioner Mairead McGuiness and Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders explain the importance of aligning the due diligence law proposal with reforms to the non-financial reporting directive (NRFD) if companies are to effectively be held to account
Over half a million people around the globe have demanded a strong EU law to hold corporations accountable for their impact on human rights, including trade union and workers’ rights, and the environment. These demands were made as part of the public consultation launched by the EU Commission.
John Ruggie voices three reservations: (1) directors are not the main driver of short-termism; (2) opposition to addressing directors’ duties may jeopardize the initiative; and (3) doing so may be largely unnecessary, as properly designed mandatory due diligence will itself change directors’ duties, he writes.