Activities of Barry ANDREWS related to 2022/0051(COD)
Plenary speeches (1)
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (debate)
Opinions (1)
OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937
Amendments (41)
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) In its Communication on a Strong Social Europe for Just Transition75 , the Commission committed to upgrading Europe’s social market economy to achieve a just transition to sustainability. This Directive will also contribute to the European Pillar of Social Rights, which promotes rights ensuring fair working conditions. It forms part of the EU policies and strategies relating to the promotion of decent work worldwide, including in global valuesupply chains, as referred to in the Commission Communication on decent work worldwide76 . _________________ 75 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A Strong Social Europe for Just Transitions (COM/2020/14 final). 76 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on decent work worldwide for a global just transition and a sustainable recovery, COM(2022) 66 final.
Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) The behaviour of companies across all sectors of the economy is key to success in the Union’s sustainability objectives as Union companies, especially large ones, rely on global valuesupply chains. It is also in the interest of companies to protect human rights and the environment, in particular given the rising concern of consumers and investors regarding these topics. Several initiatives fostering enterprises which support value-oriented transformation already exist on Union77 , as well as national78 level. _________________ 77 ‘Enterprise Models and the EU agenda’, CEPS Policy Insights, No PI2021-02/ January 2021. 78 E.g. https://www.economie.gouv.fr/entreprises/ societe-mission
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Existing international standards on responsible business conduct specify that companies should protect human rights and set out how they should address the protection of the environment across their operations and valuesupply chains. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights79 recognise the responsibility of companies to exercise human rights due diligence by identifying, preventing and mitigating the adverse impacts of their operations on human rights and by accounting for how they address those impacts. Those Guiding Principles state that businesses should avoid infringing human rights and should address adverse human rights impacts that they have caused, contributed to or are linked with in their own operations, subsidiaries and through their direct and indirect business relationships. _________________ 79 United Nations’ “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework”, 2011, available at https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publicati ons/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf.
Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The concept of human rights due diligence was specified and further developed in the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises80 which extended the application of due diligence to environmental and governance topics. The OECD Guidance on Responsible Business Conduct and sectoral guidance81 are internationally recognised frameworks setting out practical due diligence steps to help companies identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address actual and potential impacts in their operations, valuesupply chains and other business relationships. The concept of due diligence is also embedded in the recommendations of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy.82 _________________ 80 OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, 2011 updated edition, available at http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/guidelines/.h ttps://mneguidelines.oecd.org/mneguidelin es/ 81 OECD Guidance on Responsible Business Conduct, 2018, and sector- specific guidance, available at https://www.oecd.org/investment/due- diligence-guidance-for-responsible- business-conduct.htm. 82 The International Labour Organisation’s “Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, Fifth Edition, 2017, available at: https://www.ilo.org/empent/Publications/ WCMS_094386/lang--en/index.htm.
Amendment 36 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) According to the Commission Communication on forging a climate- resilient Europe89 presenting the Union Strategy on Adaptation to climate change, new investment and policy decisions should be climate-informed and future- proof, including for larger businesses managing valuesupply chains. This Directive should be consistent with that Strategy. Similarly, there should be consistency with the Commission Directive […] amending Directive 2013/36/EU as regards supervisory powers, sanctions, third- country branches, and environmental, social and governance risks (Capital Requirements Directive)90 , which sets out clear requirements for banks’ governance rules including knowledge about environmental, social and governance risks at board of directors level. _________________ 89 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Forging a climate-resilient Europe – the new EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change (COM/2021/82 final), available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2021:82:FIN. 90 OJ C […], […], p. […].
Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) This Directive aims to ensure that companies active in the internal market contribute to sustainable development and the sustainability transition of economies and societies through the identification, prevention and mitigation, bringing to an end and minimisation of potential or actual adverse human rights and environmental impacts connected with companies’ own operations, subsidiaries and valuesupply chains.
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) Companies should take appropriate steps to set up and carry out due diligence measures, with respect to their own operations, their subsidiaries, as well as their established direct and indirect business relationships throughout their valuesupply chains in accordance with the provisions of this Directive. This Directive should not require companies to guarantee, in all circumstances, that adverse impacts will never occur or that they will be stopped. For example with respect to business relationships where the adverse impact results from State intervention, the company might not be in a position to arrive at such results. Therefore, the main obligations in this Directive should be ‘obligations of means’. The company should take the appropriate measures which can reasonably be expected to result in prevention or minimisation of the adverse impact under the circumstances of the specific case. Account should be taken of the specificities of the company’s valuesupply chain, sector or geographical area in which its valuesupply chain partners operate, the company’s power to influence its direct and indirect business relationships, and whether the company could increase its power of influence.
Amendment 46 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) Adverse human rights and environmental impact occur in companies’ own operations, subsidiaries, products, and in their valuesupply chains, in particular at the level of raw material sourcing, manufacturing, or at the level of product or waste disposal. In order for the due diligence to have a meaningful impact, it should cover human rights and environmental adverse impacts generated throughout the life-cycle of production and use and disposal of product or provision of services, at the level of own operations, subsidiaries and in valuesupply chains.
Amendment 48 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) The valuesupply chain should cover activities related to the production of a good or provision of services by a company, including the development of the product or the service and the use and disposal of the product as well as the related activities of established business relationships of the company. It should encompass upstream established direct and indirect business relationships that design, extract, manufacture, transport, store and supply raw material, products, parts of products, or provide services to the company that are necessary to carry out the company’s activities, and also downstream relationships, including established direct and indirect business relationships, that use or receive products, parts of products or services from the company up to the end of life of the product, including inter alia the distribution of the product to retailers, the transport and storage of the product, dismantling of the product, its recycling, composting or landfilling.
Amendment 51 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) As regards regulated financial undertakings providing loan, credit, or other financial services, “value chain” with respect to the provision of such services should be limited to the activities of the clients receiving such services, and the subsidiaries thereof whose activities are linked to the contract in question. C, clients that are households and natural persons not acting in a professional or business capacity, as well as small and medium sizedmicro undertakings, should not be considered to be part of the valuesupply chain. The activities of the companies or other legal entities that are included in the valuesupply chain of that client should not be covered.
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Under this Directive, EU companies with more than 2500 employees on average and a worldwidethat generated a net turnover exceedingof more than EUR 1540 million in the Union in the financial year preceding the last financial year should be required to comply with due diligence. As regards companies which do not fulfil those criteria, but which had more than 250 employees on average and more than EUR 40 million worldwide net turnoverthat generated a net turnover of more than EUR 700 000 in the Union in the financial year preceding the last financial year and which operate in one or more high-impact sectors, due diligence should apply 2 years after the end of the transposition period of this directive, in order to provide for a longer adaptation period. In order to ensure a proportionate burden, companies operating in such high- impact sectors should be required to comply with more targeted due diligence focusing on severe adverse impacts. Temporary agency workers, including those posted under Article 1(3), point (c), of Directive 96/71/EC, as amended by Directive 2018/957/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council103 , should be included in the calculation of the number of employees in the user company. Posted workers under Article 1(3), points (a) and (b), of Directive 96/71/EC, as amended by Directive 2018/957/EU, should only be included in the calculation of the number of employees of the sending company. _________________ 103 Directive (EU) 2018/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 June 2018 amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ L 173, 9.7.2018, p. 16).
Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) In order to reflect the priority areas of international action aimed at tackling human rights and environmental issues, the selection of high-impact sectors for the purposes of this Directive should be based on existing sectoral OECD due diligence guidance. The following sectors should be regarded as high-impact for the purposes of this Directive: the manufacture of textiles, leather and related products (including footwear), and the wholesale trade of textiles, clothing and footwear; agriculture, forestry, fisheries (including aquaculture), the manufacture of food products, and the wholesale trade of agricultural raw materials, live animals, wood, food, and beverages; the extraction of mineral resources regardless of where they are extracted from (including crude petroleum, natural gas, coal, lignite, metals and metal ores, as well as all other, non-metallic minerals and quarry products), the manufacture of basic metal products, other non-metallic mineral products and fabricated metal products (except machinery and equipment), and the wholesale trade of mineral resources, basic and intermediate mineral products (including metals and metal ores, construction materials, fuels, chemicals and other intermediate products). As regards the financial sector, due to its specificities, in particular as regards the value chain and the services offered, eve; and the provision iof it is covered by sector-specific OECD guidance, it should not form part of the high-impact sectors covered by this Directive. At the same time, in this sector, the broader coverage of actual and potential adverse impacts should be ensured by also including very large companies in the scope that are regulated financial undertakings, even if they do not have a legal form with limited liabilityfinancial services including the activities of regulated financial undertakings.
Amendment 61 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) In order to achieve fully the objectives of this Directive addressing human rights and adverse environmental impacts with respect to companies’ operations, subsidiaries and valuesupply chains, third-country companies with significant operations in the EU should also be covered. More specifically, the Directive should apply to third-country companies whichthat generated a net turnover of at least EUR 1540 million in the Union in the financial year preceding the last financial year or a net turnover of more than EUR 40 million700 000 but less than EUR 1540 million in the financial year preceding the last financial year in one or more of the high- impact sectors, as of 2 years after the end of the transposition period of this Directive.
Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) In order to conduct appropriate human rights, and environmental due diligence with respect to their operations, their subsidiaries, and their valuesupply chains, companies covered by this Directive should integrate due diligence into corporate policies, identify, prevent and mitigate as well as bring to an end and minimise the extent of potential and actual adverse human rights and environmental impacts, establish and maintain a complaints procedure, monitor the effectiveness of the taken measures in accordance with the requirements that are set up in this Directive and communicate publicly on their due diligence. In order to ensure clarity for companies, in particular the steps of preventing and mitigating potential adverse impacts and of bringing to an end, or when this is not possible, minimising actual adverse impacts should be clearly distinguished in this Directive.
Amendment 68 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) Under the due diligence obligations set out by this Directive, a company should identify actual or potential adverse human rights and environmental impacts. In order to allow for a comprehensive identification of adverse impacts, such identification should be based on quantitative and qualitative information. For instance, as regards adverse environmental impacts, the company should obtain information about baseline conditions at higher risk sites or facilities in valuesupply chains. Identification of adverse impacts should include assessing the human rights, and environmental context in a dynamic way and in regular intervals: prior to a new activity or relationship, prior to major decisions or changes in the operation; in response to or anticipation of changes in the operating environment; and periodically, at least every 12 months, throughout the life of an activity or relationship. Regulated financial undertakings providing loan, credit, or other financial services should identify the adverse impacts only at the inception of the contract. When identifying adverse impacts, companies should also identify and assess the impact of a business relationship’s business model and strategies, including trading, procurement and pricing practices. Where the company cannot prevent, bring to an end or minimize all its adverse impacts at the same time, it should be able to prioritize its action, provided it takes the measures reasonably available to the company, taking into account the specific circumstances.
Amendment 70 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) In order to avoid undue burden on the smaller companies operating in high- impact sectors which are covered by this Directive, those companies should only be obliged to identify those actual or potential severe adverse impacts that are relevant to the respective sector.
Amendment 71 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) In line with international standards, prevention and mitigation as well as bringing to an end and minimisation of adverse impacts should take into account the interests of those adversely impacted. In order to enable continuous engagement with the valuesupply chain business partner instead of termination of business relations (disengagement) and possibly exacerbating adverse impacts, this Directive should ensure that disengagement is a last-resort action, in line with the Union`s policy of zero-tolerance on child labour. Terminating a business relationship in which child labour was found could expose the child to even more severe adverse human rights impacts. This should therefore be taken into account when deciding on the appropriate action to take.
Amendment 75 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) So as to comply with the prevention and mitigation obligation under this Directive, companies should be required to take the following actions, where relevant. Where necessary due to the complexity of prevention measures, companies should develop and implement a prevention action plan. Companies should seek to obtain contractual assurances from a direct partner with whom they have an established business relationship that it will ensure compliance with the code of conduct or the prevention action plan, including by seeking corresponding contractual assurances from its partners to the extent that their activities are part of the companies’ valuesupply chain. The contractual assurances should be accompanied by appropriate measures to verify compliance. To ensure comprehensive prevention of actual and potential adverse impacts, companies should also make investments which aim to prevent adverse impacts, provide targeted and proportionate support for an SME with which they have an established business relationship such as financing, for example, through direct financing, low-interest loans, guarantees of continued sourcing, and assistance in securing financing, to help implement the code of conduct or prevention action plan, or technical guidance such as in the form of training, management systems upgrading, and collaborate with other companies.
Amendment 79 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) In order to ensure that prevention and mitigation of potential adverse impacts is effective, companies should prioritize engagement with business relationships in the valuesupply chain, instead of terminating the business relationship, as a last resort action after attempting at preventing and mitigating adverse potential impacts without success. However, the Directive should also, for cases where potential adverse impacts could not be addressed by the described prevention or mitigation measures, refer to the obligation for companies to refrain from entering into new or extending existing relations with the partner in question and, where the law governing their relations so entitles them to, to either temporarily suspend commercial relationships with the partner in question, while pursuing prevention and minimisation efforts, if there is reasonable expectation that these efforts are to succeed in the short-term; or to terminate the business relationship with respect to the activities concerned if the potential adverse impact is severe, systemic or state- sponsored. In order to allow companies to fulfil that obligation, Member States should provide for the availability of an option to terminate the business relationship in contracts governed by their laws. It is possible that prevention of adverse impacts at the level of indirect business relationships requires collaboration with another company, for example a company which has a direct contractual relationship with the supplier. In some instances, such collaboration could be the only realistic way of preventing adverse impacts, in particular, where the indirect business relationship is not ready to enter into a contract with the company. In these instances, the company should collaborate with the entity which can most effectively prevent or mitigate adverse impacts at the level of the indirect business relationship while respecting competition law.
Amendment 84 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) So as to comply with the obligation of bringing to an end and minimising the extent of actual adverse impacts under this Directive, companies should be required to take the following actions, where relevant. They should neutralise the adverse impact or minimise its extent, with an action proportionate to the significance and scale of the adverse impact and to the contribution of the company’s conduct to the adverse impact. Where necessary due to the fact that the adverse impact cannot be immediately brought to an end, companies should develop and implement a corrective action plan with reasonable and clearly defined timelines for action and qualitative and quantitative indicators for measuring improvement. Companies should also seek to obtain contractual assurances from a direct business partner with whom they have an established business relationship that they will ensure compliance with the company’s code of conduct and, as necessary, a prevention action plan, including by seeking corresponding contractual assurances from its partners, to the extent that their activities are part of the company’s valuesupply chain. The contractual assurances should be accompanied by the appropriate measures to verify compliance. Finally, companies should also make investments aiming at ceasing or minimising the extent of adverse impact, provide targeted and proportionate support for an SMEs with which they have an established business relationship and collaborate with other entities, including, where relevant, to increase the company’s ability to bring the adverse impact to an end.
Amendment 87 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 41
Recital 41
(41) In order to ensure that bringing actual adverse impacts to an end or minimising them is effective, companies should prioritize engagement with business relationships in the valuesupply chain, instead of terminating the business relationship, as a last resort action after attempting at bringing actual adverse impacts to an end or minimising them without success. However, this Directive should also, for cases where actual adverse impacts could not be brought to an end or adequately mitigated by the described measures, refer to the obligation for companies to refrain from entering into new or extending existing relations with the partner in question and, where the law governing their relations so entitles them to, to either temporarily suspend commercial relationships with the partner in question, while pursuing efforts to bring to an end or minimise the extent of the adverse impact, or terminate the business relationship with respect to the activities concerned, if the adverse impact is considered severe, state- sponsored or systemic. In order to allow companies to fulfil that obligation, Member States should provide for the availability of an option to terminate the business relationship in contracts governed by their laws.
Amendment 89 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 42
Recital 42
(42) Companies should provide the possibility for persons and organisations to submit complaints directly to them in case of legitimate concerns regarding actual or potential human rights and environmental adverse impacts. Organisations who could submit such complaints should include trade unions and other workers’ representatives representing individuals working in the valuesupply chain concerned and civil society organisations active in the areas related to the valuesupply chain concerned where they have knowledge about a potential or actual adverse impact. Companies should establish a procedure for dealing with those complaints and inform workers, trade unions and other workers’ representatives, where relevant, about such processes. Recourse to the complaints and remediation mechanism should not prevent the complainant from having recourse to judicial remedies. In accordance with international standards, complaints should be entitled to request from the company appropriate follow-up on the complaint and to meet with the company’s representatives at an appropriate level to discuss potential or actual severe adverse impacts that are the subject matter of the complaint. This access should not lead to unreasonable solicitations of companies.
Amendment 91 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) Companies should monitor the implementation and effectiveness of their due diligence measures. They should carry out periodic assessments of their own operations, those of their subsidiaries and, where related to the valuesupply chains of the company, those of their established business relationships, to monitor the effectiveness of the identification, prevention, minimisation, bringing to an end and mitigation of human rights and environmental adverse impacts. Such assessments should verify that adverse impacts are properly identified, due diligence measures are implemented and adverse impacts have actually been prevented or brought to an end. In order to ensure that such assessments are up-to- date, they should be carried out at least every 12 months and be revised in-between if there are reasonable grounds to believe that significant new risks of adverse impact could have arisen.
Amendment 93 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 45
Recital 45
(45) In order to facilitate companies’ compliance with their due diligence requirements through their valuesupply chain and limiting shifting compliance burden on SME business partners, the Commission should provide guidance on model contractual clauses.
Amendment 95 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) In order to provide support and practical tools to companies or to Member State authorities on how companies should fulfil their due diligence obligations, the Commission, using relevant international guidelines and standards as a reference, and in consultation with Member States and stakeholders, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, the European Environment Agency, and where appropriate with international bodies having expertise in due diligence, should have the possibility to issue guidelines, including for specific sectors or specific adverse impacts.
Amendment 97 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 47
Recital 47
(47) Although SMEs are not included in the scope of this Directive, they could be impacted by its provisions as contractors or subcontractors to the companies which are in the scope. The aim is nevertheless to mitigate financial or administrative burden on SMEs, many of which are already struggling in the context of the global economic and sanitary crisis. In order to support SMEs, Member States should set up and operate, either individually or jointly, dedicated websites, portals or platforms, and Member States could also financially support SMEs and help them build capacity. Such support should also be made accessible, and where necessary adapted and extended to upstream economic operators in third countries. Companies whose business partner is an SME, are also encouraged to support them to comply with due diligence measures, in case such requirements would jeopardize the viability of the SME and use fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and proportionate requirements vis-a-vis the SMEs.
Amendment 98 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 48
Recital 48
(48) In order to complement Member State support to SMEs, the Commission mayshall build on existing EU tools, projects and other actions helping with the due diligence implementation in the EU and in third countries. It may, with a particular focus on developing countries. It shall set up new support measures that provide help to companies, including SMEs on due diligence requirements, including an observatory for valuesupply chain transparency and the facilitation of joint stakeholder initiatives.
Amendment 100 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 56
Recital 56
(56) In order to ensure effective compensation of victims of adverse impacts, Member States should be required to lay down rules governing the civil liability of companies for damages arising due to its failure to comply with the due diligence process. The company should be liable for damages if they failed to comply with the obligations to prevent and mitigate potential adverse impacts or to bring actual impacts to an end and minimise their extent, and as a result of this failure an adverse impact that should have been identified, prevented, mitigated, brought to an end or its extent minimised through the appropriate measures occurred and led to damage, unless that company is an SME.
Amendment 102 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 57
Recital 57
(57) As regards damages occurring at the level of established indirect business relationships, the liability of the company should be subject to specific conditions. The company should not be liable if it carried out specific due diligence measures. However, it should not be exonerated from liability through implementing such measures in case it was unreasonable to expect that the action actually taken, including as regards verifying compliance, would be adequate to prevent, mitigate, bring to an end or minimise the adverse impact. In addition, in the assessment of the existence and extent of liability, due account is to be taken of the company’s efforts, insofar as they relate directly to the damage in question, to comply with any remedial action required of them by a supervisory authority, any investments made and any targeted support provided as well as any collaboration with other entities to address adverse impacts in its valuesupply chains.
Amendment 105 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 59
Recital 59
(59) As regards civil liability rules, the civil liability of a company for damages arising due to its failure to carry out adequate due diligence should be without prejudice to civil liability of its subsidiaries or the respective civil liability of direct and indirect business partners in the valuesupply chain. Also, the civil liability rules under this Directive should be without prejudice to Union or national rules on civil liability related to adverse human rights impacts or to adverse environmental impacts that provide for liability in situations not covered by or providing for stricter liability than this Directive.
Amendment 111 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 71
Recital 71
(71) The objective of this Directive, namely better exploiting the potential of the single market to contribute to the transition to a sustainable economy and contributing to sustainable development through the prevention and mitigation of potential or actual human rights and environmental adverse impacts in companies’ valuesupply chains, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting individually or in an uncoordinated manner, but can rather, by reason of the scale and effects of the actions, be better achieved at Union level. In particular, addressed problems and their causes are of a transnational dimension, as many companies are operating Union wide or globally and valuesupply chains expand to other Member States and to third countries. Moreover, individual Member States’ measures risk being ineffective and lead to fragmentation of the internal market. Therefore, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 TEU. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.
Amendment 219 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point h
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point h
(h) ‘independent third-party verification’ means verification of the compliance by a company, or parts of its valuesupply chain, with human rights and environmental requirements resulting from the provisions of this Directive by an auditor which is independent from the company, free from any conflicts of interests, has experience and competence in environmental and human rights matters and is accountable for the quality and reliability of the audit;
Amendment 244 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that companies take appropriate measures to identify actual and potential adverse human rights impacts and adverse environmental impacts arising from their own operations or those of their subsidiaries and, where related to their valuesupply chains, from their established business relationships, in accordance with paragraph 2, 3 and 4.
Amendment 252 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) seek contractual assurances from a business partner with whom it has a direct business relationship that it will ensure compliance with the company’s code of conduct and, as necessary, a prevention action plan, including by seeking corresponding contractual assurances from its partners, to the extent that their activities are part of the company’s valuesupply chain (contractual cascading). When such contractual assurances are obtained, paragraph 4 shall apply;
Amendment 257 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
As regards potential adverse impacts within the meaning of paragraph 1 that could not be prevented or adequately mitigated by the measures in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, the company shall be required to refrain from entering into new or extending existing relations with the partner in connection with or in the valuesupply chain of which the impact has arisen and shall, where the law governing their relations so entitles them to, take the following actions:
Amendment 266 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) seek contractual assurances from a direct partner with whom it has an established business relationship that it will ensure compliance with the code of conduct and, as necessary, a corrective action plan, including by seeking corresponding contractual assurances from its partners, to the extent that they are part of the valuesupply chain (contractual cascading). When such contractual assurances are obtained, paragraph 5 shall apply.
Amendment 338 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Article 10 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that companies carry out periodic assessments of their own operations and measures, those of their subsidiaries and, where related to the valuesupply chains of the company, those of their established business relationships, to monitor the effectiveness of the identification, prevention, mitigation, bringing to an end and minimisation of the extent of human rights and environmental adverse impacts. Such assessments shall be based, where appropriate, on qualitative and quantitative indicators and be carried out at least every 12 months and whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that significant new risks of the occurrence of those adverse impacts may arise. The due diligence policy shall be updated in accordance with the outcome of those assessments.
Amendment 352 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall, in order to provide information and support to companies and the partners with whom they have established business relationships in their valuesupply chains in their efforts to fulfil the obligations resulting from this Directive, set up and operate individually or jointly dedicated websites, platforms or portals. Specific consideration shall be given, in that respect, to the SMEs that are present in the value chains of companies.
Amendment 372 #
2. In deciding whether to impose sanctions and, if so, in determining their nature and appropriate level, due account shall be taken of the company’s efforts to comply with any remedial action required of them by a supervisory authority, any investments made and any targeted support provided pursuant to Articles 7 and 8, as well as collaboration with other entities to address adverse impacts in its valuesupply chains, as the case may be.
Amendment 390 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
In the assessment of the existence and extent of liability under this paragraph, due account shall be taken of the company’s efforts, insofar as they relate directly to the damage in question, to comply with any remedial action required of them by a supervisory authority, any investments made and any targeted support provided pursuant to Articles 7 and 8, as well as any collaboration with other entities to address adverse impacts in its valuesupply chains.
Amendment 394 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 3
Article 22 – paragraph 3
3. The civil liability of a company for damages arising under this provision shall be without prejudice to the civil liability of its subsidiaries or of any direct and indirect business partners in the valuesupply chain.