7 Amendments of Leopoldo LÓPEZ GIL related to 2020/2129(INL)
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that globalisationone of the advantages of globalisation has been the development of the economic sector, which has created interdependencies between societies, where any product results fromich at times interlink through complex transnational supply and value chains and where decisions taken by Europeantransnational firms impact on peoples’ ability to enjoy their human rights and fundamental freedoms worldwide;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Regrets that manysome businesses’ 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 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. RegretNotes that despite attempts by European companies are attempting 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, however only 37% of businesses are currently undertaking due diligence in their supply chains and only 16% cover the entire value chain; stresses that 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 gap;
Amendment 75 #
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 the company 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 113 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Notes that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and Human Rights Council have stated that climate change has an adverse impact on the full and effective enjoyment of human rights; underlines that the member states of the United Nations have an obligation to respect human rights when addressing adverse impacts of climate change; points out that the Supreme Court of the Netherlands has confirmed that Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR impose a positive obligation for State Parties to take appropriate measures to prevent dangerous climate change; insists that climate change mitigation and adaptation in line with the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals must form part of multinational businesses’ human rights and environmental due diligence obligations under the legislation;
Amendment 116 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Notes that some corporations unlawfully exploit natural resources, which not only constitutes a major sustainability and environmental challenge but also results in severe adverse impacts on the social, economic, cultural, civil and political rights of local communities; such business practices violate the fundamental right of peoples to self-determination and the principle of permanent sovereignty, access and control over their natural resources, enshrined in UN General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII); recommends that the legislation requires Member States to regulate businesses’ activity in compliance with their commitment to the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, including the fundamental principles of equality, non-discrimination and self- determination of peoples;
Amendment 212 #
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 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;