BETA

Activities of Heidi HAUTALA related to 2020/2129(INL)

Plenary speeches (1)

2021/03/08
Dossiers: 2020/2129(INL)

Shadow reports (1)

2021/02/12
Committee: JURI
Dossiers: 2020/2129(INL)
Documents: PDF(428 KB) DOC(166 KB)
Authors: [{'name': 'Lara WOLTERS', 'mepid': 5392}]

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}]

Legal basis opinions (0)

Amendments (36)

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that globalisation has created interdependencies between societies, where any growing number of products results from complex transnational supply and value chains and where decisions taken by ~~European firms~~firms operating in the EU internal market, impact on peoples’ ability to enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms worldwide;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Is increasingly concerned by the human rights impacts of business activities in third countries, particularly extractive industries, large-scale agri- business acquisitions and development projects, on indigenous peoples, local communities and human rights and environmental defenders; deplores that indigenous peoples and human rights and environmental defenders who defend traditional ancestral lands and resources, are being increasingly threatened and attacked; stresses that the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recently noted that strengthening the regulation of private companies is essential;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Regrets that freedom of association and collective bargaining are frequently stymied, especially in Export Processing Zones(EPZs); notes that even when union activities are permitted or workers are legally allowed to join trade unions in EPZs, attempts to associate and bargain collectively continue to be undermined in practice; stresses that other labour-related concerns, such as inadequate state labour inspection, limited right to redress, excessive working hours, poverty wages, the gender pay gap and other forms of sex discrimination, remain of serious concerns in an increasing number of countries, notably in EPZs;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Expresses its full support to the work of the Open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights and to the ongoing negotiations to create a UN binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises; welcomes the announcement of Commissioner designate for Trade Valdis Dombrovskis on 2nd October 2020 that the EU will re- engage in the process; stresses the importance of pro-active and meaningful participation by the Commission and the EU Member States to the process, recalling the EU’s commitment towards multilateral solutions to common problems;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Recommends that Union legislation cover all companies and all sectors, including state-owned enterprises and state bodies including their public procurement and export credit activities, the banking sector and financial institutions, including the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 16

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

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

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; notes that the UN Special Rapporteur has also stressed that the loss of biodiversity undermines the full enjoyment of human rights and that states should regulate harm to biodiversity from private actors as well as government agencies; 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 the legislation;

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 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; recommends that the Union legislation should require companies to respect the Geneva Conventions and the two additional protocols, as clarified by the UNGPs, the Hague Regulations and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

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 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 that are gender- responsive, free of cost and without risks of retaliation for rights holders;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

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 impact~~identify, cease, prevent, mitigate, monitor and remediate the effect of adverse impacts; recalls that the due diligence process is a continuous, preventive, and risk-based process;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

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; insists that the scope of due diligence obligations must be based on the risk of adverse impacts and must be specific to the country, including an analysis of the regional and local human rights context, 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; notes also that adverse impacts can be differentiated for women and men, as highlighted by the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights in its Gender Guidance to the UNGPs;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 29 a (new)

29a. Recommends that the legislation requires enhanced human rights and environmental due diligence for companies that have and/or are planning to have business activities or relationships in conflict-affected areas; recommends that the enhanced due diligence could, for instance, include a requirement not to pursue operations in situations in which due diligence cannot be conducted and/or guarantee that there will not be complicity or contribution to violations that may amount to grave breaches of international law and internationally recognised crimes; suggests that, in parallel, the Commission conducts a study on activities and business relationships in conflict- affected areas and occupied territories of companies domiciled or operating in the Union internal market and those receiving EU funds; calls on the Commission and Member States to closely monitor the companies operating in the internal market and those receiving EU funds that are listed in UN reports or databases on business activities related to situation of international concern, notably annexed or occupied territories;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 29 b (new)

29b. Suggests that the Union legislation facilitates the development of comprehensive and coherent methodologies for measuring human rights as well as environment and climate change impacts on the basis of existing international guiding frameworks (notably UNGPs, OECD Guidelines, international specialised agencies as well as tools from civil society) and the EU sustainable finance taxonomy;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 29 c (new)

29c. Suggests that the legislation requires the drafting of sector-specific guidelines for companies by the Commission; recommends that the drafting of such guidelines should see the active and meaningful participation of EU Member States EU Delegations, EU agencies, as well as other relevant international organizations or bodies including UN bodies and Special Rapporteurs, the OECD, as well as civil society, trade unions, workers, communities, businesses, human rights and environmental defenders and indigenous peoples;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

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 on company due diligence process and its results in a standardised format based on an adequate and coherent reporting framework, that must be easily accessible and available to right-holders who are or may be adversely affected by the business activity and/or operations;

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; notes that the Union should undertake periodic monitoring of procedural compliance and regular updating of such lists, including through a right to appeal for the companies concerned;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 36

36. In this context, underlines the importance of the freedom of association ~~and~~, the right to form and join trade unions and the right to collective bargaining and action, as well as free, prior and informed consent by indigenous communities;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Subheading 6

Protection of whistle-blowers, human rights and environmental defenders and lawyers

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 40

40. Recommends that the legislation requires 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~~as well as lawyers representing plaintiffs from lawsuits, intimidation, attempts to silence their claims, intimidation and being otherwise deterred from seeking justice;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 41

41. Notes that the right to an effective remedy is an internationally recognised human right, enshrined by Article 8 UDHR and by Article 2(3) ICCPR, as well as by Article 6 and 13 of the ECHR, and is also a Union fundamental right (Article 47 of the Charter);

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 43

43. Stresses that as part of due diligence, as required by the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, companies should put in place processes to enable the adverse human rights impacts they cause or to which they contribute to be remedied in an effective way, ensuring that there is mutual agreement with the rights-holders on the parameters of the remedy and how it is provided; accordingly, operational level grievance mechanisms should be legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, transparent, rights-compatible, based on engagement and dialogue and a source of continued learning as established in United Nations Guiding Principle 31; stresses that remedies should seek to redress imbalances in power, resources and information between the rights holders and the business enterprise; emphasises that such mechanisms should never be used to obstruct access to justice via state-based, judicial and non-judicial, grievance mechanisms;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 44

44. Insists that access to evidence and time limitations, as well as gender inequality, vulnerability and marginalisation 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 from the victims to the company and that the legislation must 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

Draft opinion
Paragraph 46 a (new)

46a. Suggests that the legislation establishes that both competent administrative and judicial authorities should be able to act on a complaint by third parties, including members of the public and, as such, civil society organisations and trade unions, through safe and accessible channels without threat of reprisals;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 46 b (new)

46b. Recommends that the Commission’s support in relation to the rule of law, good governance and access to justice in third countries prioritises the capacity-building of local authorities in the areas addressed by the legislation, when appropriate; is convinced that the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) should include a stand-alone allocation for supporting the capacity of local actors including civil society organisations, human rights defenders, trade unions and affected rights-holders in monitoring the implementation of the Union legislation in relation to activities in third countries as well as in filing complaints under the scope of the legislation;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 46 c (new)

46c. Recalls that, according to the UNGPs, business enterprises conducting due diligence should not assume that, by itself, this will automatically and fully absolve them from liability for causing or contributing to human rights abuses;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 47

47. Calls for measures to ensure that Union due diligence legislation is adequately monitored and enforced by national and Union bodies with appropriate duties and powers; such bodies should have the necessary resources, expertise and competence to investigate abuses, initiate enforcement actions and to support victims, for instance through legal advice, technical support and representation; stresses that the Commission should publish guidance addressing effective enforcement action at Member States level;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

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; recommends that the Union sanctions regime should include the exclusion from public procurement and public funding for non-compliant companies;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 48 a (new)

48a. Notes that financial sanctions should be determined on the basis of a proportional approach, namely taking into account, amongst other elements, companies’ turnover and size, the sector of activity, the context of its operations, its business model, its position in value chains and the nature of its products and services;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

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. and to counter behaviour from companies which repeatedly and deliberately fail to respect human rights and environmental due diligence;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Subheading 8 a (new)

Trade, human rights and EU external action

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 51 a (new)

51a. Notes that the Union legislation should include human rights and environmental due diligence requirements together with the ratification of the core human rights treaties and ILO conventions as a precondition for the ratification of and within clauses to trade and investment agreements negotiated by the Union in order to ensure policy coherence and a level playing field for EU-based operators;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 51 b (new)

51b. Notes that the development of tools and training materials on business and human rights and human rights due diligence for EU and EU MS national institutions as well as for EU delegations should be based on existing guiding frameworks (UNGPs, OECD Guidelines, ILO Declaration); insists on the mainstreaming of gender considerations in such tools on the basis of the UN guidance on the Gender Dimensions of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 51 c (new)

51c. Stresses the importance of ensuring that staff in EU delegations are adequately trained on business and human rights; calls on EU delegations to engage with third countries’ authorities to raise awareness as well as share tools and information on human rights and environmental due diligence and develop tailor-made programmes in this area, also in order to promote the development of similar legislation in the host countries;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 51 d (new)

51d. Recommends that the Union legislation facilitates and supports the role of EU Delegations in their engagement with the business sector and all other relevant stakeholders in third countries in implementing Union legislation’s due diligence requirements and standards;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 51 e (new)

51e. Is convinced that the Union legislation should in parallel require the development of an EU Action Plan on Business and Human Rights alongside the framework of the Action Plan on Democracy and Human Rights; suggests that, within this framework and drawing on the model of the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Entreprise, the Union should establish an EU Special Representative on Responsible Business Conduct with the power among others to examine, monitor, advise, and publicly report on the Union legislation on human rights and environmental due diligence and EU actions in this regard within the framework of the Action Plan on Democracy and Human Rights;

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET

Draft opinion
Paragraph 51 f (new)

51f. Notes that the Union legislation should facilitate, strengthen and call for a proactive and meaningful EU participation at the ongoing negotiations to create a binding UN instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights.

2020/10/12
Committee: AFET