38 Amendments of Isabel WISELER-LIMA related to 2020/2129(INL)
Amendment 9 #
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 impact on peoples’ ability to enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms worldwide;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Notes that the OECD has shown that companies which took proactive steps to address the risks related to the COVID- 19 crisis in a way that mitigates adverse impacts on workers and supply chains, integrate a more long-term value and resilience, improving their viability in the short term and their prospects for recovery in the medium to long term;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Regretcalls that many businesses’ decisions are primarily guided by lower costs and higher profits with inadequate consideration of adversein any market economy companies are driven by the motivation of making a profit, meaning reaching a situation where total revenues outnumber total costs, which is the basis for their capacity to employ staff and pay out decent salaries, which in return also permits state authorities to collect taxes, and hence the gathering of an economic profit can be seen as the origin of our social market economy, social wealth and economic progress; notes however that business decisions of certain companies may not pay adequate attention to the long-term costs of their short-term profit gathering, such as working conditions and environmental standards, which can impacts on human rights and the environment down their global value chains, while severeas human rights violations often occur at primary production level, in particular when sourcing raw material and manufacturing products;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Recognises that the European citizens, as active consumers in the European internal market, are increasingly demanding that companies actively take into account the full spectrum of their economic activities and pursue an effective policy of corporate social responsibility (CSR), and notes that increasingly more consumers make their decision on purchase of products or services from companies based on their CSR record and sustainability criteria;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Welcomes the fact that more and more companies are integrating due diligence and corporate social responsibility as integral parts of their business decisions and underlines that such an approach is not only morally appropriate but ultimately also is a more economical long-term approach;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Notes that as a result of changed business models and increased public scrutiny, the human rights situations of certain workers has significantly improved; underlines, however, that much needs to be done;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is gravely concerned by the persistent exploitation and degradation of human beings through forced labour systems affecting 25 million people and from which the private economy extracted profits of 150 billion dollars globally in 2019; Notes with concern that there are currently s; points in this light also to the unacceptable situation of child labour, which according to UN sources affects millions of children below the age of 18 around the world; points to the special responsibility of compan iestimated 152 million children in child labour, 72 million of whom work in hazardous conditions to protect in particular children and prevent any form of child labour;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that the rights to an effective remedy and fair trial are basic human rights enshrined in Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter; stresses that the Union, as part of its commitment to promote, protect and fulfil human rights worldwide, mustshould help to promote the rights of victims of business- related human rights violations and abuses that amount to criminal offences in third countries, in line with Directives 2011/36/EU1 , and 2012/29/EU2 of the European Parliament and of the Council; _________________ 1 Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA (OJ L 101, 15.4.2011, p. 1). 2 Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57).
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Notes, that in 2014, the UNHRC adopted a resolution establishing an open- ended intergovernmental working group with the mandate to elaborate an international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises, with respect to human rights;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out that corruption in the context of judicial proceedings can have a devastating effect on the lawful administration of justice and judicial integrity, and intrinsically violate the fundamental right to a fair trial, the right to due process and the victim’s right to effective redress; stresses that corruption generally leads tocan potentially lead to cases of systematic abuse of human rights in the business context, for example, by preventing individuals from accessing goods and services that states are obliged to provide to meet their human rights obligations, by encouraging wrongful acquisition or appropriation by businesses of land, or by granting licences or concessions to businesses in the extractive sector;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Regrets that despite attempts byWelcomes the attempts taken by a number of European companies to implement their corporate responsibility policies to respect human rights, and various polices and laws in place to encourage or require due diligence across different Member States, only 37% of businesses are currently undertaking due diligence in their supply chains and only 16% cover the entire value chain; stresses thatstresses that in order to advance the protection of human rights and prevention of business- related abuses and violations cannot be achieved with current policies and that binding Union legislation is necessary to bridge this gapa better legal framework is needed;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that corporationdiverse groups of stakeholders, businesses and investors are calling for mandatory human rights due diligence legislation at Union level, to harmonise standards inside the EU single market, and secure a global level playing field and greater legal and business certainty;
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Recalls, however, that additional support to companies is needed in order to ensure that the implementation of any such new regulation does not lead to disproportionate obstacles and financial burden for companies;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Underlines that special efforts must be taken to ensure that the rules for the European companies should ultimately also be implemented globally in order to avoid that new regulations simply lead to reduction of European activities without actually improving the human rights situation of workers, since the economic activities simply move to other markets with lower standards; stresses the importance of holding businesses and competitors worldwide to equal standards, in order not to put companies into competitive disadvantage for being responsible, while businesses with lower due diligence standards stand to benefit;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 a (new)
Paragraph 15 a (new)
15a. Stresses the necessity of a single European harmonised legal framework, provided that currently there are a number of laws and standards at national levels that can create complexity, uncertainty and fragmentation, whereas a united approach can provide legal certainty and introduce clear course of action;
Amendment 87 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 15 b (new)
Paragraph 15 b (new)
15b. Recommends that small, medium- sized and micro-enterprises should be covered by any future mandatory EU due diligence framework but that their diligence processes should follow a proportional approach that could take into account, amongst other elements, the sector of activity, the size of the undertaking, the context of its operations, the nature and the severity of risks in its value chain, its business model, its position in value chains and the nature of its products and services;
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Recommends that Union mandatory due diligence legislation be adopted to require companies to identify and address their impacts with reference to all internationally recognisedfor the EU single market be adopted to ensure the full implementation of human rights including, as a minimum, those encompassed by the UDHR, all nine core international human rights treaties, the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and all fundamental ILO conventions, as well as the ECHR and ICESCR, which are binding on Council of Europe member states and also bind Member States as a result of Union law and the common constitutional traditions of the Member States;
Amendment 123 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Notes that some businesses are accused of profiting from or even complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity due to their own activity or that of their business partners in conflict-affected areas or to their business relationships with state- or non-state actors involved in conflicts globally; Recommends that, in order to prevent substantial risks of grave human rights abuses and serious breaches of international law, the scope of due diligence under Union legislation be extended to breaches of international criminal law and international humanitarian law in which businesses may beare directly implicated;
Amendment 128 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 26
Paragraph 26
26. Recommends that, requirements for corporate mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence should be grounded in the principle of corporate responsibility to respect human rights as articulated by the UNGPs; businesses should avoid infringing human rights and address adverse human rights impacts with which they are directly or indirectly connected, entailing in practice that they should have in place an embedded human rights policy, a human rights due diligence process and appropriate and adequate measures to facilitate access to effective remedies for business-related human rights abuses, including at company level, and other grievance mechanisms;
Amendment 140 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Is of the view that businesses 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 146 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Stresses that human rights impacts can be specific to certain rights holders and vulnerable groups due to intersecting factors such as gender, ethnicity, religion, social and employment status, migrant or refugee status, indigenous status, exposure to conflict or violence or other factors; this must be reflected in the due diligence processes, including the human rights impact assessment phase and remedy procedures;
Amendment 152 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Notes that the risk of business- related human rights adverse impacts does not always depend on the size of the company; iInsists that the scope of due diligence obligations must be based on the risk of adverse impacts and must be specific to the country and sector of activity; recalls that according to the UNGPs, three factors should be taken into account in assessing the severity of business impacts on human rights: the scale of the impact, the scope of the impact and whether the impact is irremediable;
Amendment 159 #
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 should include in their analysis, in addition to information from employees, right-holders, affected communities and workers’ representatives,seek cooperation and 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 171 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Notes that due diligence also necessitates measuring the effectiveness of processes and measures taken and communicating results, including periodicallwhen deemed necessary producing public evaluation reports, while fully complying with competition policy and the need to protect internal business know-how;
Amendment 173 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. Stresses that transparency must be at the core and the overriding principle of the tracking, monitoring and assessment process and that external participation, oversight and verification are key elements for robust and meaningful corporate human rights due diligence and its evaluation; calls, accordingly, for Union due diligence legislation to require the publication of lists of companies within its scope, the publication of due diligence reports via online public repositories, and the identification of companies that comply or have failed to comply with due diligence obligations;
Amendment 176 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
Amendment 182 #
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 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 195 #
37. Suggests that the companies establish effective alert mechanisms; through recourse to such mechanisms any interested party, including trade unions, consumers, journalists, civil society organisations, including faith-based organisations, as well as Churches and religious communities, lawyers, and human rights and environmental defenders, or members of the public, should be able to warntalk and potential send early warning signs to the company of adverse impacts and human rights violations;
Amendment 203 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 42
Paragraph 42
42. Highlights the fact that, as recalled by the UNGPs, states and not companies have the duty to ensure, through judicial, administrative, legislative or other appropriate means, that those affected by business-related human rights abuses for which the company is directly responsible have access to an effective remedy; Recommends that the legislation makes specific reference to this obligation in line with the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Rights to Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law;
Amendment 207 #
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 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 mechanismsvictims of human rights violations, environmental damage and corruption abuses they cause or to which they contribute to have access to an effective remedy action;
Amendment 213 #
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 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 223 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46
46. Recommends that the legislation establishes guidance regarding the elements of an effective, fair and equitable operational grievance mechanism, with a view to defining appropriate measures tofor prevent harmion, including providing adequate access to remedies;
Amendment 226 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 46 a (new)
Paragraph 46 a (new)
46a. Stresses that if due diligence is implemented comprehensively, companies will in the long term benefit from better business conduct with focus on prevention rather than on remediation of harms;
Amendment 234 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 48
Paragraph 48
48. Recommends that Union due diligence legislation could as a last resort, and only after steps aimed at mediation have not resulted in any improvement require Member States to determine effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties and sanctions based on the severity and repetition of misconduct for non- compliance by companies with due diligence obligations, including in relation to the making of false or misleading statements;
Amendment 243 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Recommends thata discussion on whether the legislation should include criminal liability provisions for companies and directors and management that aretop level officials of companies that are directly held responsible in the event of severe violations of human rights.;