Activities of Manon AUBRY related to 2020/2129(INL)
Plenary speeches (1)
Corporate due diligence and corporate accountability (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT with recommendations to the Commission on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION with recommendations to the Commission on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability
Amendments (8)
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes that there is strong need for a mandatory, harmonised framework at Union level to ensure a level playing field for business and welcomes the Commission’s ongoing work on legislation requiring that Union companies conduct due diligence on respect for human rights and environmental obligations throughout their supply chains; believes that undertakings should have a due diligence obligation to take all reasonable measures to prevent adverse human rights and environmental impacts from occurring in their supply chain and to adequately address such impacts when they occur:
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that all human rights should be covered by the future legislation; considers that emphasis should be placed on workers and trade union rights, women, children or indigenous people; stresses that full alignment with existing legal obligations and standards at European and international level should be sought; is of the opinion that the legislation should address all types of human rights abuses; is of the opinion that the legislation should also cover adverse impacts to the environment, including when they do not constitute a clear and direct human rights abuse;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Is of the opinion that the newfuture Union due diligences legislation should apply to all sectors, to all types of enterpriseundertakings, whether public or private, and of all size across the Union; considers that the focus should be placed on the risks, including undertakings that are not established in the Union and operate in the internal market; stresses that, if necessary, undertakings should prioritise their due diligence strategy taking into consideration the severity and the likelihood of human rights, environmental and governance risks; recalls that regardless of the prioritisation chosen by the undertaking, it should be held liable for adverse human rights and environmental impacts of its supply chain unless it proves that it has acted with due diligence;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is of the opinion that the future legislation should establish mandatory and effective corporate due diligence processes covering companies’ activities and their business relationships, including their supply and subcontracting chains; stresses that breaches of due diligence obligations by undertakings should give rise to administrative and criminal sanctions; underlines the importance of a civil liability mechanism to provide access to justice and access to remedy for victims;
Amendment 106 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Recalls the wide and effective range of administrative sanctions existing under Union law, particularly in competition and data protection law; calls for clear, proportionate, effective and dissuasive administrative sanctions in case of breaches of undertakings’ due diligence obligations, including significant fines, bans from public procurement and public support schemes, as well as seizure of commodities;
Amendment 107 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Underlines the crucial importance of civil liability mechanisms to provide access to remedy for victims before Union courts; stresses that barriers to access to remedy should be lifted, including through a reversal of the burden of proof, adequate statutes of limitations, support regarding legal costs, and the modification of private international law norms;
Amendment 114 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that access to effective remedy is crucial; recalls that states have the primary duty to provide access to remedy; underlines that corporate grievance mechanisms are only meant to work as early-warning systems, allow for emergency relief and remedies for small damages; considers that the legislation shcould oblige companies to have an effective grievance mechanism that should be transparent, accessible, predictable, safe, trustworthy and accountable; considers, in addition, that such mechanism should provide for effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations, environmental damage and corruption abuses, individually and through collective actions; believes that special protection should be provided to human rights defenders and its lawyerstresses that such mechanisms must be certified by public authorities and that they should never prevent a claimant to access public courts;
Amendment 124 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Considers that, in parallel to its work on a mandatory corporate due diligence legislation, the Union should adopt a mandate to actively and constructively engage in the negotiations for a UN binding treaty of business and human rights, with the aim of securing an ambitious global level playing field for human rights protection and business responsibilities.