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

这页面没有简体中文版本,现以English显示

评论文章

2024年5月21日

作者:
Jeffrey Vogt, Solidarity Center, Ruwan Subasinghe, International Transport Workers’ Federation & Paapa Danquah, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)

CSDDD – A timid step forward in the fight against corporate human rights abuse

The European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), soon to be formally confirmed by the European Council, reflects an important step in corporate accountability for human rights abuses. The directive is the result of tireless work by trade unions, civil society organisations and progressive MEPs. That said, following the significant weakening of the final text by some EU member states, we have considerable doubts as to whether the CSDDD is sufficiently ambitious for it to deliver meaningful results for the world’s workers and trade unions. It will therefore be critically important that member states pass national legislation which builds on the provisions of the CSDDD when they transpose the directive.

Below are just some of our concerns and observations:

Subject matter

The CSDDD sets rules for companies with respect to their own operations, the operations of their subsidiaries and the operations carried out by their ‘business partners in the companies’ chains of activities’. While this provision broadens the scope beyond Tier 1 suppliers, the term “chain of activities” fails to incorporate critical downstream business partner activities, including product disposal and recycling, among other things. This marks a significant deviation from the UNGPs, which cover impacts across a company’s full value chain including downstream business relationships.

Scope

The CSDDD establishes a minimum threshold of 1,000 employees on average and a global net turnover of over €450m. This results in less than 0.05% of EU-based companies being covered by the Directive. The scope of the CSDDD goes well beyond merely carving out SMEs, as many large enterprises will also be excluded. Of significant concern is the limited scope of application of the Directive to the finance industry. This approach is not only inconsistent with the UNGPs, but also helps shield companies with woeful track records, including banks, from accountability. One notable improvement is the inclusion of franchise or licencing agreements.

Severity of harm

Companies will be required to map their operations, and those of their subsidiaries and business partners “in order to identify general areas where adverse impacts are most likely to occur and to be most severe.” Despite the definition of severe adverse impact being broadly in line with the UNGPs, it is unclear whether companies will consider potential and actual violations of the right to freedom of association and to collectively bargain as “most likely” to occur and to be “most severe”. It is also unclear whether a national authority or court would find the failure to identify and assess that risk to these enabling rights constitutes a violation of the CSDDD. Trade unions will need to push to ensure trade union rights are considered a regular part of all due diligence.

Stakeholder consultation and Trade Unions

Whereas the Commission Proposal encouraged companies to engage with stakeholders “where relevant”, the final draft makes clear that companies undertake effective engagement, including with trade unions, at all steps of the due diligence process. Trade unions can also file complaints with the relevant national supervisory authority and bring claims on behalf of right-holders under the proposed civil liability regime.

Prevention

Perhaps one of the most meaningful additions to the CSDDD is the requirement of companies, where relevant, to make necessary modifications or improvements to their purchasing practices. Purchasing practices can be a major contributor to the labour abuses ultimately committed by a business partner in a supply chain. If this provision is effectively transposed into national law, this could have a meaningful impact on labour rights compliance.

Outsourcing responsibility

New to the CSDDD is a provision that companies may develop their preventive and corrective action plans in cooperation with industry or multi-stakeholder initiatives. Similarly, contractual assurances sought from business partners may be verified via “independent third-party verification”. We note there is a very wide range in the quality of MSIs in the business and human rights space with many having either limited or no trade union representation. As such, we are deeply concerned the Directive will have breathed life into a failed CSR model. Trade unions will have to be extremely vigilant, as there is a high risk of dilution of efforts to monitor a company’s compliance with its human and environmental rights obligations.

Civil liability

The civil liability regime under the CSDDD is unfortunately even more limited in its reach than the Commission draft. A company can only be held liable for damage caused if the company intentionally or negligently failed to comply with its HRDD obligations and as a result of that failure, damage to a victim’s legal interest protected under national law was caused. The article adds a proviso the company cannot be held liable if the damage was caused only by its business partners in its chain of activities.

Conclusion

The threat of significant pecuniary penalties and the ability of states to take punitive public support and procurement measures against offending companies gives the CSDDD some teeth. The Directive’s in-built review mechanism also offers hope for progressive future amendments. However, the shortcomings highlighted above and other major omissions, including directors’ duties and just transition measures for workers, among others, represent major normative gaps. It will be critical that in the transposition of the CSDDD into national law, member states take advantage of the flexibility allowed to create stronger rules that will be more effective in protecting the rights of workers and trade unions.

Jeffrey Vogt is the Rule of Law Director of the Solidarity Center and co-founder and Chair of the International Lawyers Assisting Workers (ILAW) Network; Ruwan Subasinghe is Legal Director at the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) and Paapa Danquah is Legal Director at the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).

*A full legal analysis of the CSDDD from the authors is forthcoming in the Cornell International Law Journal.

"迈向强制性的人权尽职调查"

评论文章

A Global Heat Map: Identifying hot spots for corporate abuse

Jennifer Teufel and Dr. Anna Würth, German Institute for Human Rights 2024年12月19日

评论文章

A ‘digital turn’ for sustainability due diligence? Digital tools and the CSDDD

Antoine Duval and Klaas Hendrik Eller, Digichain 2024年10月1日

View Full Series

隐私资讯

本网站使用 cookie 和其他网络存储技术。您可以在下方设置您的隐私选项。您所作的更改将立即生效。

有关我们使用网络存储的更多信息,请参阅我们的 数据使用和 Cookie 政策

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.

分析 cookie

ON
OFF

您浏览本网页时我们将以Google Analytics收集信息。接受此cookie将有助我们理解您的浏览资讯,并协助我们改善呈现资讯的方法。所有分析资讯都以匿名方式收集,我们并不能用相关资讯得到您的个人信息。谷歌在所有主要浏览器中都提供退出Google Analytics的添加应用程式。

市场营销cookies

ON
OFF

我们从第三方网站获得企业责任资讯,当中包括社交媒体和搜寻引擎。这些cookie协助我们理解相关浏览数据。

您在此网站上的隐私选项

本网站使用cookie和其他网络存储技术来增强您在必要核心功能之外的体验。