abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

このページは 日本語 では利用できません。English で表示されています

コンテンツは以下の言語で利用可能です: English, Deutsch

記事

2022年11月17日

著者:
Euractiv

EU member states fight over scope of due diligence directive

The directive initially proposed by the Commission on 23 February 2022 would require member states to introduce legislation making companies responsible for violations of human rights and environmental standards along its entire value chain...

However, multiple EU diplomats told EURACTIV that a coalition of member states, including France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, are trying to prevent this in a last-minute push to narrow the scope of the directive to the supply chain of a company.

“We believe that the focus should be on the upstream and not on the downstream [of the value chain],” an EU member state diplomat told EURACTIV, arguing that due diligence of the supply chain was already ambitious...

A diplomat of another EU member state told EURACTIV that the last-minute push led by France “is getting to a point where all that would remain would be a value chain in name only.”

As several EU diplomats confirmed to EURACTIV, the push is resisted by Germany, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands and Luxembourg.

“Companies would be completely off the hook for the harms their products create,” one source familiar with the negotiations told EURACTIV regarding the consequence of ditching the value chain approach for a supply chain approach.

For example, pesticide producers would not be held accountable if their products were used in a way that was especially harmful to the environment or to public health. Or producers of digital surveillance tools could not be made responsible if their tools were used for illegal surveillance operations, such as Pegasus or Predator.

The supply chain approach would also benefit financial institutions that do not want to be held liable for what their invested money might be put to use for...

タイムライン

プライバシー情報

このサイトでは、クッキーやその他のウェブストレージ技術を使用しています。お客様は、以下の方法でプライバシーに関する選択肢を設定することができます。変更は直ちに反映されます。

ウェブストレージの使用についての詳細は、当社の データ使用およびクッキーに関するポリシーをご覧ください

Strictly necessary storage

ON
OFF

Necessary storage enables core site functionality. This site cannot function without it, so it can only be disabled by changing settings in your browser.

クッキーのアナリティクス

ON
OFF

When you access our website we use Google Analytics to collect information on your visit. Accepting this cookie will allow us to understand more details about your journey, and improve how we surface information. All analytics information is anonymous and we do not use it to identify you. Google provides a Google Analytics opt-out add on for all popular browsers.

Promotional cookies

ON
OFF

We share news and updates on business and human rights through third party platforms, including social media and search engines. These cookies help us to understand the performance of these promotions.

本サイトにおけるお客様のプライバシーに関する選択

このサイトでは、必要なコア機能を超えてお客様の利便性を高めるために、クッキーやその他のウェブストレージ技術を使用しています。