Activities of María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS related to 2022/0051(COD)
Plenary speeches (1)
Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (debate)
Shadow 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 (22)
Amendment 194 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26 a (new)
Recital 26 a (new)
(26a) It is fundamental to ensure that human rights due diligence is implemented in a gender-responsive manner, acknowledging that gender inequality is embedded both in state and market institutions and represents a constrain the realisation of women and girl’s rights. Member States should ensure that companies apply gender lens throughout all of the steps and activities of the due diligence process - including gender-responsive remediation processes and mechanisms- and encourage companies them to actively support gender equality.
Amendment 203 #
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 information received after relevant, transparent, accessible and meaningful stakeholder engagement, as well as in additional quantitative and qualitative informationdata. For instance, as regards adverse environmental impacts, the company should obtain information about baseline conditions at higher risk sites or facilities in value 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 209 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) In line with international standards, prevention and mitig, mitigation and remediation as well as bringing to an end and minimisation of adverse impacts should fully take into account the interests and circumstances of those adversely impacted through a relevant, regular, meaningful and accessible consultation process that truly allows them to participate in the design and decision making process that directly affects them. In order to enable continuous engagement with the value 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 222 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 45 a (new)
Recital 45 a (new)
(45a) A full, safe, transparent, regular, meaningful and effective engagement of all relevant stakeholders throughout all the steps of due diligence process in the whole value chain is fundamental in order to ensure a proper implementation of this Directive. In line with international standards, that process should be interactive, accessible, responsive, continuous, gender-responsive, child- sensitive and adapted to vulnerable stakeholders. Their involvement should take place timely and prior to decisions that could cause any adverse impacts. All relevant information needed by stakeholders to make informed judgments should be made available in a concise, transparent, comprehensible and easily accessible manner, including meaningful information about operations, projects and investments and their current and future adverse impacts.
Amendment 225 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 49
Recital 49
(49) The Commission and Member States should continue to work in partnership with third countries to support upstream economic operators build the capacity to effectively prevent and mitigate adverse human rights and environmental impacts of their operations and business relationships, paying specific attention to the challenges faced by smallholders. They should use their neighbourhood, development, trade and international cooperation instruments to support third country governments and upstream economic operators in third countries addressing adverse human rights and environmental impacts of their operations and upstream business relationships, including through capacity building and expertise that will facilitate companies falling within the scope of this directive to comply with their due diligence obligations. This could include working with partner country governments, the local private sector and stakeholders, including civil society organizations and human rights defenders, on addressing the root causes of adverse human rights and environmental impacts. In the same line, the Commission and Member States should provide targeted support to stakeholders in third countries, in order to ensure a meaningful and safe engagement in all due diligence processes. In particular, support should be provided to national and local civil society organisations and human rights defenders to monitor corporate practices and hold companies accountable. The Commission should also consider specific support programs for human rights defenders at risk because of their monitoring of corporate activities, particularly environmental defenders. In addition, the Commission and Member States should increase their dialogue with third countries in order to contribute to the enabling of environments in which the risks of retaliation is minimized.
Amendment 233 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 58
Recital 58
(58) The liability regime does not regulate who should prove that Member States shall take the necessary measures, in accordance with their national judicial systems, to ensure that, where persons who consider themselves wronged by failure to apply due diligence responsibilities establish, before a court or other company’s action was reasonably adequate under the circumstances of the case, thereetent body, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been a direct or indirect breach of the due diligence responsibilities, it shall be fore this question is left to national lawe respondent to prove that the company’s action was adequate under the circumstances of the case.
Amendment 244 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 69
Recital 69
(69) This Directive is without prejudice toguided by the principle of “do not harm”, in accordance with to the obligations in the areas of human rights, protection of the environment and climate change under other Union legislative acts. If the provisions of this Directive conflict with a provision of another Union legislative act pursuing the same objectives and providing for more extensive or more specific obligations, the provisions of the other Union legislative act should prevail to the extent of the conflict and shall apply to those specific obligations.
Amendment 246 #
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 mitig, mitigation and remediation of potential or actual human rights and environmental adverse impacts in companies’ value 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 value 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 271 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b – point iii
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b – point iii
(iii) the extraction, transport and handling of mineral resources regardless from where they are extracted (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), the manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products 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).
Amendment 273 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b – point iii a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b – point iii a (new)
(iiia) construction, infrastructure , logistics and other civil engineering projects;
Amendment 291 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) ‘human rights defenders’ means individuals or groups who act to promote, protect or strive for the protection and realization of universally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms;
Amendment 317 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point q
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point q
(q) ‘appropriate measure’ means a measure that is capable of achieving the objectives of due diligence, commensurate with the degree of severity and the likelihood of the adverse impact, and reasonably available to the company after meaningful, proven and regular engagement and consultation with relevant stakeholders, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case, including characteristics of the economic sector and of the specific business relationship and the company’s influence thereof, and the need to ensure prioritisation of action.
Amendment 329 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(fa) ensuring a meaningful, regular, accessible and safe engagement with stakeholders throughout the due diligence process in accordance with Article 11a
Amendment 335 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall ensure that companies develop meaningful, safe and regular engagement with stakeholders in accordance with Article 11a, integrate due diligence into all their corporate policies and have in place a due diligence policy. The due diligence policy shall contain all of the following:
Amendment 340 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) a code of conduct describing rules and principles to be followed by the company’s employees and subsidiaries and established with the full engagement and relevant consultation with trade unions, civil society organizations, human rights defenders and other relevant stakeholders;
Amendment 460 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) personindividuals, groups, communities or entities who are affected or have reasonable grounds to believe that they might be affected by an adverse impact,
Amendment 463 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) civil society organisations active in the areas related to the value chain concerned.nd human rights defenders active in the areas directly or indirectly related to the value chain concerned, including - inter alia- environmental defenders and victims and witnesses of corruption;
Amendment 469 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point a
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point a
(a) to request appropriatnd receive appropriate, transparent and effective follow-up on the complaint from the company with which they have filed a complaint pursuant to paragraph 1 providing substantiated and accessible reasoning to their claims, and
Amendment 470 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point b
Article 9 – paragraph 4 – point b
(b) 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, including guarantees of non- retaliation, confidentiality and anonymity when requested;.
Amendment 504 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission may complement Member States’ support measures building on existing Union action to support due diligence in the Union and in third countries and may devise new measures,. This should includinge the facilitation of shared value partnerships as well as of joint stakeholder initiatives to help companies fulfil their obligations, but also a set of accompanying measures to partner countries- and particularly to developing countries- in order to contribute to the convergence, harmonisation and professionalisation of private standard schemes, metrics, monitoring and assessment systems, as well as accounting and reporting formats to ensure credible, gender-sensitive, reliable, actionable and comparable performance data on due diligence.
Amendment 560 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Article 22 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Member States shall take the necessary measures, in accordance with their national judicial systems, to ensure that, where persons who consider themselves wronged by failure to apply due diligence responsibilities establish, before a court or other competent body, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been a direct or indirect breach of the due diligence responsibilities, it shall be for the respondent to prove that the company’s action was adequate under the circumstances of the case.
Amendment 585 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 1
Article 26 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that directors of companies referred to in Article 2(1) are responsible for putting in place and overseeing the due diligence actions referred to in Article 4 and in particular the due diligence policy referred to in Article 5, with mandatory, relevant, transparent and meaningful engagement and due consideration for relevant input from stakeholders and civil society organisations, including human rights defenders, trade unions and persons and groups of persons affected or with legitimate interests in the adverse impacts arising from operations carried out by the company, its subsidiaries or business partners in the value chain. The directors shall report to the board of directors in that respect.