BETA

Activities of Karin KARLSBRO related to 2020/2129(INL)

Plenary speeches (1)

Corporate due diligence and corporate accountability (debate)
2021/03/08
Dossiers: 2020/2129(INL)

Shadow opinions (1)

OPINION with recommendations to the Commission on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability
2020/11/25
Committee: AFET
Dossiers: 2020/2129(INL)
Documents: PDF(180 KB) DOC(62 KB)
Authors: [{'name': 'Raphaël GLUCKSMANN', 'mepid': 197694}]

Amendments (34)

Amendment 7 #
2. Notes that in a globalisation has created economy there are interdependencies between societies, where any product results from and many value chains are interlinked, this has created opportunity for growth and development; however some products with complex transnational supply and value chains and where decisions taken by European firmsmay impact on peoples’ ability to enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms worldwide;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Highlights that democracy, which protects human rights and fundamental freedoms, is the only form of government compatible with sustainable development; points out that corruption and lack of transparency greatly undermines human rights; calls on the Commission to in their external actions, including in trade and investment agreements, always include provisions and discussions on the protection of human rights;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Regrets that many businesses’ decisions are primarily 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 oftenhuman rights violations may occur at primary production level, in particular when sourcing raw material and manufacturing products;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
4. Is gravely concerned by the persistent exploitation and degradation of human beings through forced labour systems affecting 25 million people and from which the private economy extracted profits of 150 billion dollars globally in 2019; Notes with concern that there are currently an estimated 152 million children in child labour, 72 million of whom work in hazardous conditionsand slave-like practices; is especially concerned by the levels of child labour in the world;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 45 #
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 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
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
11. Regrets 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 the current policies have not always achieved the goal of protectiong of human rights and prevention of business-related abuses and violations; cannot be achieved with current policies and that binding Union legislation is necessarylls on the Commission to propose a legislative proposal to bridge this gap;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
13. UrgesCalls on the Commission to propose Union mandatlegislation fory 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;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 70 #
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 partners;deleted
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
15. Recommends that 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
Amendment 93 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
17. Recommends that Union mandatoryany future Union due diligence legislation be adopted toshould 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;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 18
18. Notes that Charter applies to all Union legislation and to national authorities when implementing Union law both in the Union and in third countries;deleted
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 102 #
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, regional, 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
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 21
21. Recalls that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment has stated that the rights to life, health, food, water and development, as well as the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, are necessary for the full enjoyment of human rights; points out that the United Nations General Assembly recognised, in its Resolution 64/292, the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right; recommends consequently that those rights be covered by thany possible legislation;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 112 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 22
22. Notes that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Human Rights Council have stated that climate change has an adverse impact on the full and effective enjoyment of human rights; underlines that the member states of the United Nations have an obligation to respect human rights when addressing adverse impacts of climate change; points out that the Supreme Court of the Netherlands has confirmed that Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR impose a positive obligation for State Parties to take appropriate measures to prevent dangerous climate change; insists that climate change mitigation and adaptation in line with the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals must form part of businesses’ human rights and environmental due diligence obligations under the legislationany possible corporate due diligence legislation must be in line with the Paris Agreement;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 114 #
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 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;deleted
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 118 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 24
24. Notes that systemic corruption violates the principles of transparency, accountability and non-discrimination, with severe implications for the effective enjoyment of human rights; recalls that the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and United Nations Convention against Corruption oblige Member States to implement effective practices aimed at the prevention of corruption; stresses that provisions of the United Nations Convention against Corruption should form part of due diligence obligations in the legislation;deleted
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 119 #
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 abuses and serious breaches of international law, 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;deleted
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 126 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 26
26. Recommends that, requirements for corporate mandatory 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 haveconnected, which could entail having in place an embedded human rights policy, and 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;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 141 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 27
27. Is of the view that businesses have a responsibility to ensure that their activities do not undermine or harm the protection of human and environmental rights; insists they must not promote, participate or in any manner contribute to, or endorse policies and activities, which can lead to human rights violations; underlines that businesses must do everything possible, within their capacities, to prevent and mitigate the effect of adverse impacts;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 151 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 29
29. Notes that the risk of business- related human rights adverse impacts does not always depend on the size of the company; iInsists that the scope of due diligence obligations must be based on the risk of adverse impacts and must be specific to the country and sector of activity; recalls that according to the UNGPs, three factors should be taken into account in assessing the severity of business impacts on human rights: the scale of the impact, the scope of the impact and whether the impact is irremediable;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 164 #
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 an and should fully involves relevant stakeholders;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 169 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 32
32. Notes that due diligence also necessitates measuring the effectiveness of processes and measures taken and communicating results, including periodically producing public evaluation reports;deleted
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 175 #
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
Amendment 178 #
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;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 183 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 35
35. Notes that rights holders primarily affected by business-related human rights abuses often lack adequate access to information about their rights and about how they are given effect in domestic legislative systems, and have difficulty accessing state agencies and organisations concerned with protection and enforcement of their rights; recommends that the legislation encourage businesses to engage with all affected and potentially affected stakeholders, with their representatives, or both, including workers’ representatives, at all stages of the due diligence process, from development to monitoring and evaluation, in a timely and meaningful manner;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 190 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 36
36. In this context, underlines the importance of the freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, as well as free, prior and informed consent byprior consultations with indigenous communities;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 200 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 40
40. Recommends that the legislation requiresCommission investigates in any possible legislation the need for the establishment of a protection mechanism in compliance with Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, in order to protect stakeholders from lawsuits, attempts to silence their claims, intimidation and being otherwise deterred from seeking justice;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 202 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 42
42. Highlights the fact that, as recalled by the UNGPs, states have the duty to ensure, through judicial, administrative, legislative or other appropriate means, that those affected by business-related human rights abuses have access to an effective remedy; Recommends that the legislation makes specific reference to this obligation in line with the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Rights to Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 217 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 44
44. Insists that access to evidence and time limitations can be major practical and procedural barriers faced by victims of human rights abuses in third countries, obstructing their access to effective legal remedies; stresses that that the burden of proof should be shifted fromany possible legislation should facilitate theat victims to the company and that the legislation musthave access to remedies and require companies to disclose all necessary information for interested parties to engage in judicial proceedings and for victims to access remedies;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 219 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 45
45. Stresses the importance of effective access to remedies for persons in situations of vulnerability, as enshrined in Article 13 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; recalls that Article 47 of the Charter requires Member States to provide legal aid to those who lack sufficient resources insofar as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 221 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 46
46. Recommends that thany possible legislation should 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
Amendment 229 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 47
47. Calls for measures to ensureUnderlines that any Union due diligence legislation ismust be adequately monitored and enforced by national and Union bodies with appropriate duties and powers; such bodies should have competence to investigate abuses, initiate enforcement actions and to support victims, for instance through legal advice, technical support and representation;
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 233 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 48
48. Recommends that Union due diligence legislation require Member States to determine effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties and sanctions for non-compliance by companies with due diligence obligations, including in relation to the making of false or misleading statements;deleted
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET
Amendment 241 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 51
51. Recommends that the legislation include criminal liability provisions for companies and directors and management that are held responsible in the event of severe violations of human rights.deleted
2020/10/12
Committee: AFET