● The purchasing company engages with its partners (e.g. contractors, state agencies, or brands/retailers to raise awareness of potential impacts of problematic practices (e.g. pricing, timelines) or decisions and promotes responsible solutions.
CSDDD relevant articles
Articles 10, 11 & 13
Article 10 - Preventing Potential Adverse Impacts
10.1. Member States shall ensure that companies take appropriate measures to prevent, or where prevention is not possible or not immediately possible, adequately mitigate, potential adverse impacts that have been, or should have been, identified pursuant to Article 8, in accordance with Article 9 and with this Article.
Article 11 - Bringing Actual Adverse Impacts to an End
11.3 (g) in compliance with Union law, including competition law, collaborate with other entities, including, where relevant, in order to increase the company’s ability to bring the adverse impact to an end or minimise the extent of such impact, in particular where no other measure is suitable or effective;
Article 13, Meaningful engagement with stakeholders.
13.1. Member States shall ensure that companies take appropriate measures to carry out effective engagement with stakeholders, in accordance with this Article.
13.2. 2. Without prejudice to Directive (EU) 2016/943, when consulting with stakeholders, companies shall, as appropriate, provide them with relevant and comprehensive information, in order to carry out effective and transparent consultations. Without prejudice to Directive (EU) 2016/943, consulted stakeholders shall be allowed to make a reasoned request for relevant additional information, which shall be provided by the company within a reasonable period of time and in an appropriate and comprehensible format. If the company refuses a request for additional information, the consulted stakeholders shall be entitled to a written justification for that refusal.
CSDDD relevant recitals
Recitals, 38, 48, 49, 53 & 54
Recital 38
In order to conduct appropriate human rights and environmental due diligence with respect to their operations, the operations of their subsidiaries, and the operations of their business partners in the chains of activities of the companies, companies covered by this Directive should integrate due diligence into their policies and risk management systems, identify and assess, where necessary prioritise, prevent and mitigate as well as bring to an end and minimise the extent of actual and potential adverse human rights and environmental impacts, provide remediation in relation to actual adverse impacts, carry out meaningful engagement with stakeholders, establish and maintain a notification mechanism and complaints procedure, monitor the effectiveness of the measures taken in accordance with the requirements that are provided for in this Directive and communicate publicly on their due diligence. In order to ensure clarity for companies, in particular the steps of preventing and mitigating potential adverse impacts and of bringing to an end, or when this is not possible, minimising the extent of actual adverse impacts, should be clearly distinguished in this Directive.
Recital 48
In order to reflect the full range of options for the company in cases where potential adverse impacts could not be addressed by the described prevention or mitigation measures, this Directive should also refer to the possibility for the company to seek contractual assurances from the indirect business partner, with a view to achieving compliance with the company’s code of conduct or a prevention action plan, and conduct appropriate measures to verify compliance of the indirect business partner with the contractual assurances.
Recital 49
It is possible that prevention of potential adverse impacts would require collaboration with another company, for example, at the level of an indirect business partner with a company, which has a direct contractual relationship with the indirect business partner in question. In some instances, a collaboration with other entities could be the only realistic way of preventing potential adverse impacts being caused even by direct business partners if the influence of the company is not sufficient.
The company should collaborate with the entity which can most effectively prevent or mitigate potential adverse impacts solely or jointly with the company, or other legal entities, while respecting applicable law, in particular competition law.
Recital 53
Under the due diligence obligations provided for in this Directive, if a company identifies actual adverse human rights or environmental impacts, it should take appropriate measures to bring those to an end. It can be expected that a company is able to bring to an end actual adverse impacts in its own operations and those of its subsidiaries.
However, it should be clarified that, where adverse impacts cannot be brought to an end, companies should minimise the extent of such impacts. Minimisation of the extent of adverse impacts should require an outcome that is the closest possible to bringing the adverse impact to an end. Therefore, the company should periodically reassess the circumstances that prevented it from bringing the adverse impact to an end, and whether the adverse impact can be brought to an end.
To provide companies with legal clarity and certainty, this Directive should specify which actions companies should be required to take for bringing actual human rights and environmental adverse impacts to an end and for minimising their extent, where relevant depending on the circumstances. When assessing the appropriate measures to bring to an end or minimise the extent of the adverse impacts, due account should be taken of the so-called ‘level of involvement of the company in an adverse impact’ in line with the international frameworks and the company’s ability to influence the business partner causing or jointly causing the adverse impact.
Companies should take appropriate measures to bring to an end or minimise the extent of the adverse impacts that they cause by themselves (so-called ‘causing’ the adverse impact as referred to in the international framework) or jointly with their subsidiaries or business partners (so-called ‘contributing’ to the adverse impact as referred to in the international framework). This applies irrespective of whether third parties outside of the company’s chain of activities are also causing the adverse impact.
Jointly causing the adverse impact is not limited to equal implication of the company and its subsidiary or business partner in the adverse impact, but should cover all cases of the company’s acts or omissions, causing the adverse impact in combination with the acts or omissions of subsidiaries or business partners, including where the company substantially facilitates or incentivises a business partner to cause an adverse impact, that is, excluding minor or trivial contributions.
When companies are not causing the adverse impacts occurring in their chains of activities themselves or jointly with other legal entities, but the adverse impact is caused only by their business partner in the chains of activities of the companies (so-called ‘being directly linked to’ the adverse impact as referred to in the international framework), they should still aim to use their influence to bring to an end or minimise the extent of the adverse impact caused by their business partners or to increase their influence to do so. Using only the notion of ‘causing’ the adverse impact instead of the aforementioned terms used in the international frameworks avoids confusion with existing legal terms in national legal systems while covering the same causal relationships described in those frameworks.
In this context, in line with the international frameworks, the company’s influence on a business partner should include on the one hand its ability to persuade the business partner to bring to an end or minimise the extent of the adverse impacts (for example through market power, pre-qualification requirements or linking business incentives to human rights and environmental performance) and, on the other hand, the degree of influence or leverage that the company could reasonably exercise, for example, through cooperation with the business partner in question or engagement with another company which is the direct business partner of the business partner associated with the adverse impact.
Recital 54
To conduct their due diligence in an effective and efficient manner, companies should also make necessary modifications or improvements to their design and distribution practices, to address adverse impacts arising both in the upstream part and the downstream part of their chains of activities, before and after the product has been made.