Activities of Maria ARENA related to 2020/2129(INL)
Plenary speeches (1)
Corporate due diligence and corporate accountability (debate)
Amendments (15)
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that globalisation has created interdependencies between societies, where any product results from complex transnational supply and value chains and where decisions taken by European firms and financial institutions authorised to operate in the Union impact on peoples’ ability to enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms worldwide;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Regrets that many businesses’ and financial institutions’ decisions are primarily guided by lower costs and higher profits with inadequate consideration of adverse impacts on human rights and the environment down their global value chains, while severe human rights violations often occur at primary production level, in particular when sourcing raw material and manufacturing products;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Urges the Commission to propose Union mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation imposing legal obligations on Union companies and companies domiciled or operating in the Union internal market, including all financial institutions authorised to operate in the Union, and establishing effective monitoring, enforcement and remedy mechanisms;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Recommends that due diligence as required by Union legislation be extended to all potential or actual adverse impacts which thea company, or a financial institution, has or may have caused, contributed to or with which it may be directly linked; this extends to, but is not limited to, abuses across the entire value chain, including the parent undertaking, all subsidiaries, direct and indirect suppliers and subcontractors or other business partners;
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Recommends that Union legislation cover all companies and all sectors, including state-owned enterprises, the banking sector and all financial institutions authorised to operate in the Union, including the European Investment Bank;
Amendment 137 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Is of the view that businesses and financial institutions 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 impacts;
Amendment 160 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Notes that human right risks are context-specific and that, to accurately assess human rights risks, prevent, mitigate and remedy adverse impacts, businesses and financial institutions should include in their analysis, in addition to information from employees, right- holders, affected communities and workers’ representatives, information from reliable independent expert sources, for which transparency is key; stresses in this regard, the key role of national human rights institutions, NGOs human rights oversight bodies such as the United Nations, ILO and Council of Europe, OSCE supervisory mechanisms, and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights as relevant sources of information and reporting;
Amendment 185 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Notes that rights holders primarily affected by business-related human rights abuses often lack adequate access to information about their rights and about how they are given effect in domestic legislative systems, and have difficulty accessing state agencies and organisations concerned with protection and enforcement of their rights; recommends that the legislation encourage businesses and financial institutions to engage with all affected and potentially affected stakeholders, with their representatives, or both, including workers’ representatives, at all stages of the due diligence process, from development to monitoring and evaluation, in a timely and meaningful manner;
Amendment 194 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Suggests that the companies and financial institutions establish effective alert mechanisms; through recourse to such mechanisms any interested party, including trade unions, consumers, journalists, civil society organisations, lawyers, and human rights and environmental defenders, or members of the public, should be able to warn the company of adverse impacts and human rights violations;
Amendment 210 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 43
Paragraph 43
43. Stresses that as part of due diligence, as required by the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, companies and financial institutions should put in place processes to enable the adverse human rights impacts they cause or to which they contribute to be remedied; 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; emphasises that such mechanisms should never be used to obstruct access to justice via state-based, judicial and non-judicial, grievance mechanisms;
Amendment 216 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 44
Paragraph 44
44. Insists that access to evidence and time limitations 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 or financial institution 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;
Amendment 235 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 48
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 and financial institutions with due diligence obligations, including in relation to the making of false or misleading statements;
Amendment 236 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Recommends that Union due diligence legislation require Member States to determine effective, proportionate and dissuasive administrative penalties and sanctions for non- compliance by companies with due diligence obligations, including in relation to the making of false or misleading statements;
Amendment 238 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 48 a (new)
Paragraph 48 a (new)
48a. Recommends that the EU legislation should require Member States to introduce civil liability regimes to ensure that companies can be held responsible for harm arising out of human and environmental rights violations, caused or contributed to by entities in their global value chain, unless they can prove that they took all reasonable measures to prevent such harm;
Amendment 245 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Recommends that the legislation include criminal liability provisions for companies and, financial institutions, directors, and management that are held responsible in the event of severe violations of human rights.;