The respect of human rights is the most fundamental value that we have as a society. Nevertheless, economic globalisation has lead to the massive exploitation of human rights in developing countries for the benefit of multinational enterprises (MNEs). The outsourcing and offshoring of production and services have had huge environmental and social costs.
European MNEs have been continually associated with violations of workers' rights, environmental damage, and harm to local communities. The reason for these continued violations is complex and multifaceted, yet of central significance is the law that governs these MNEs’ legal structures and accountability.
Subject to certain exceptions, the parent companies and boards of directors of MNEs are not legally responsible for the adverse human rights impacts directly linked to their operations, products, or services by their business relationships, including those caused by their subsidiaries, subcontractors, or customers. While victims of human rights abuses are typically entitled to pursue legal action in the country where the abuse took place, there may exist significant practical barriers, including the lack of an effective judicial system.
An additional problem is that even if the victims of corporate related abuse can make a legal case against the parent company of an MNE under the jurisdiction of an EU Member State, the existence of legal, procedural, and institutional barriers still prevent these victims from gaining access to an effective remedy.
The concept of human rights due diligence has recently garnered attention as a major tool that has the potential to bridge this governance gap. It sits at the core of the United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, which recognize and clarify the state duty to protect human rights, the corporate responsibility to respect them, and the right of people to access remedy for violations of human rights.
We work with the European Coalition for Corporate Justice (ECCJ), of which we are a Steering Member, and other civil society groups, and renowned legal experts to develop and promote solutions to the above mentioned problems.
Due diligence under the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) is designed to direct finite corporate resources towards the issues that matter most for people and the environment. At the heart of that effort is prioritisation, defined in Article 9 of the Directive. Having spoken about this topic at the RBA conference this week, I want to share some reflections on what good prioritisation looks like in practice and what pitfalls to avoid.
The Parliament proposal shows that many of the concerns raised through Frank Bold’s research and engagement with policymakers are now entering the legislative mainstream. But the negotiations ahead will determine whether the final framework is capable of addressing the structural weaknesses that continue to undermine trust in the sustainable investment market.
The European Commission has published its draft Delegated Regulation revising the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). The revision follows the Omnibus I Simplification Package and is presented as a burden-reduction measure. Some of it is - but a closer reading reveals a set of changes that go well beyond simplification, departing from EFRAG's technical advice and disregarding formal recommendations from the European Supervisory Authorities. Many of these changes have significant implications for the quality and comparability of sustainability data available to the market and public.
