BETA

Activities of Karol KARSKI related to 2020/2129(INL)

Shadow opinions (1)

2020/11/25
Committee: AFET
Dossiers: 2020/2129(INL)
Documents: PDF(180 KB) DOC(62 KB)
Authors: [{'name': 'Raphaël GLUCKSMANN', 'mepid': 197694}]

Amendments (23)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Notes that the Article 21 of the Treaty on the European Union requires the Union to promote and consolidate the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as protected by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) ~~and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’)~~, to ensure sustainable development and consistency between its external action and other policies;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Underlines that corporate due diligence has been increasingly introduced into legal standards in the Member States;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Regrets that many businesses’ decisions are ~~primarily~~often guided by lower costs and higher profits with inadequate consideration of adverse impacts on human rights and the environment down their global value chains, while severe human rights violations often occur at primary production level, in particular when sourcing raw material and manufacturing products;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses, that in recent years multiple voluntary initiatives and actions, in particular by small and medium- sized EU businesses have been undertaken with the aim to improve the corporate due diligence climate throughout the Union; emphasises the importance of supporting companies throughout this process;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Points out that OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct further describe how businesses can avoid and address adverse impacts related to workers, human rights, the environment, corruption, consumers and corporate governance that may be associated with their operations, supply chains and other business relationships; irecalls ofn the ~~view that Union legislation should progressively and constructively build on the UNGPs and that guidance;~~ importance of regular revision of the application of the due diligence regulation by companies and Member States, when monitoring market trends; calls for specific technical assistance to our companies, especially SMEs, so that they may comply with due diligence requirements as efficiently and effectively as possible;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Points out that corruption in the context of judicial proceedings can have a devastating effect on the lawful administration of justice and judicial integrity, and intrinsically violate the ~~fundamental~~human right to a fair trial, the right to due process and the victim’s right to effective redress; stresses that corruption generally leads to systematic abuse of human rights in the business context, for example, by preventing individuals from accessing goods and services that states are obliged to provide to meet their human rights obligations, by encouraging wrongful acquisition or appropriation by businesses of land, or by granting licences or concessions to businesses in the extractive sector;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. ~~Regret~~Notes that despite attempts by European companies to implement their corporate responsibility policies to respect human rights, and various polices and laws in place to encourage or require due diligence across different Member States, only 37% of businesses are currently undertaking due diligence in their supply chains and only 16% cover the entire value chain; stresses that protection of human rights and prevention of business-related abuses and violations cannot be achieved with current policies and that binding Union legislation is necessary to bridge this gapis concerned with mandatory due diligence’s impact as regards the competitiveness of EU businesses; calls for detailed analysis and fitness check of additional costs and obligations and their impact on EU businesses, resulting from due diligence rules, in particular SMEs; calls on Member States to provide for improved assistance to EU businesses in implementing due diligence guidelines and relevant rules and regulations;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. ~~Notes that~~Is concerned that some corporations and investors are calling for mandatory human rights due diligence at Union level~~, to harmonise standards, and secure a global level playing field and greater legal and business certainty~~; underlines the additional and potential excessive administrative costs and burdens in particular on SMEs need to be duly taken into account for any possible future due diligence legislation; calls on the Commission to conduct a thorough impact assessment beforehand;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Urges the Commission to propose Union mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation imposing legal obligations on Union companies and companies domiciled or operating in the Union internal market and establishing effective monitoring, enforcement and remedy mechanisms;deleted

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

14. Recommends that due diligence as required by Union legislation be extended to all ~~potential or~~ actual adverse impacts which the company has or may have caused, contributed to or with which it may be directly linked; this extends to, but is not limited to, abuses across the entire value chain, including the parent undertaking, all subsidiaries, direct and indirect suppliers and subcontractors or other business partnerscaused;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Recommends that existing Union legislation cover all companies and all sectors, including state-owned enterprises, the banking sector and financial institutions, including the European Investment Bank;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16

16. ~~Stresse~~Recalls that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated and should be promoted and implemented in a fair and equitable manner; recommends that due diligence obligations should apply to all business- related human rights abuses;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 17

17. Recommends that Union mandatory due diligence legislation be adopted to require companies to identify and address their impacts with reference to all internationally recognised human rights including, as a minimum, those encompassed by the UDHR, all nine core international human rights treaties, the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and all fundamental ILO conventions, as well as the ECHR and ICESCR, which are binding on Council of Europe member states and also bind Member States as a result of Union law and the common constitutional traditions of the Member States;deleted

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 19

19. Notes that the human rights of groups at risk of vulnerability and marginalisation are disproportionately impacted by businesses’ activities; ~~insists therefore that Union mandatory due diligence legislation should refer to group-specific instruments in defining the scope of corporate human rights due diligence;~~ stresses, in this regard, that all rights guaranteed to those most severely affected groups under local, national or international law must be covered, as enshrined in Article 5 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 23

23. Notes that some corporations unlawfully exploit natural resources, which not only constitutes a major sustainability and environmental challenge but also results in severe adverse impacts on the social, economic, cultural, civil and political rights of local communities; such business practices violate the fundamental right of peoples to self-determination and the principle of permanent sovereignty, access and control over their natural resources, enshrined in UN General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII); recommends that the possible legislation requires Member States to regulate businesses’ activity in compliance with their commitment to the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, including the fundamental principles of equality, non-discrimination and self- determination of peoples;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 25

25. Notes that some businesses are accused of profiting from or even complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity due to their own activity or that of their business partners in conflict-affected areas or to their business relationships with state- or non-state actors involved in conflicts globally; Recommends that~~, in order to prevent substantial risks of grave human rights abu~~ the Commission assess ~~and serious breaches of international law,~~the impact of extending the scope of due diligence under Union legislation ~~be extended~~ to breaches of international criminal law and international humanitarian law ~~in which businesses may be implicated~~;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 26

26. Recommends that, requirements for ~~corporate mandatory~~a possible corporate human rights and environmental due diligence be grounded in the principle of corporate responsibility to respect human rights as articulated by the UNGPs; businesses should avoid infringing human rights and address adverse human rights impacts with which they are directly or indirectly connected, entailing in practice that they should have in place an embedded human rights policy, a human rights due diligence process and appropriate and adequate measures to facilitate access to effective remedies for business-related human rights abuses, including at company level, and other grievance mechanisms, where applicable;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 28

28. Stresses that human rights impacts can be specific to certain rights holders and vulnerable groups due ~~to intersecting factors such as gender, ethnicity, social and employment status, migrant or refugee status, exposure to conflict or violence or other factors~~; this must be reflected in the due diligence processes, including the human rights impact assessment phase and remedy procedures;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 31

31. Notes that in order to assess human rights risks, independent monitoring of human rights impacts and working conditions in supply chains ~~is essential, in particular by means of monitoring, which has workers and affected communities at its core and fully involves relevant stakeholder~~contributes greatly to the work of official oversight authorities;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 33

33. Stresses that transparency must be at the core and the overriding principle of the monitoring and assessment process and that external participation, oversight and verification are key elements for robust and meaningful corporate human rights due diligence and its evaluation; calls, accordingly, for Union due diligence legislation to require the publication of lists of companies within its scope, the publication of due diligence reports via online public repositories, and the identification of companies that comply or have failed to comply with due diligence obligations;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 34

34. Is of the view that transparency should not be corporate led but based on the right to know of those who are impacted by commercial activities, including workers, communities and consumers; suggests that stakeholders have a right to know such information in a comprehensive, timely and honest manner; believes that enforcing the right to be informed allows for the clear establishment of duties and duty bearers and rights and right-holders;deleted

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 39

39. Deplores that an increasing number of attacks are documented on human rights and environmental defenders and that 572 attacks occurred in 2019 alone; stresses that Article 12 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders imposes a duty on states to ensure the protection of everyone against violence, threats, retaliation, discrimination or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate right to promote human rights;deleted

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 46

46. Recommends that thfuture legislation establishes guidance regarding the elements of an effective, fair and equitable operational grievance mechanism, with a view to defining appropriate measures to prevent harm, including providing adequate access to remedies;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET