2.5 Effective feedback mechanisms

Article 8, Identifying and assessing actual and potential adverse impacts 

Article 8.1  Member States shall ensure that companies take appropriate measures to identify and assess actual and potential adverse impacts arising from their own operations or those of their subsidiaries and, where related to their chains of activities, those of their business partners, in accordance with this Article

Article 8.2  As part of the obligation set out in paragraph 1, taking into account relevant risk factors, companies shall take appropriate measures to: 

(a) map their own operations, those of their subsidiaries and, where related to their chains of activities, those of their business partners, in order to identify general areas where adverse impacts are most likely to occur and to be most severe; (b) based on the results of the mapping as referred to in point (a), carry out an in-depth assessment of their own operations, those of their subsidiaries and, where related to their chains of activities, those of their business partners, in the areas where adverse impacts were identified to be most likely to occur and most severe

Article 8.3  Member States shall ensure that, for the purposes of identifying and assessing the adverse impacts referred to in paragraph 1 based on, where appropriate, quantitative and qualitative information, companies are entitled to make use of appropriate resources, including independent reports and information gathered through the notification mechanism and the complaints procedure provided for in Article 14.

Article 8.4 Where information necessary for the in-depth assessment provided for in paragraph 2, point (b), can be obtained from business partners at different levels of the chain of activities, the company shall prioritise requesting such information, where reasonable, directly from business partners where the adverse impacts are most likely to occur.

Article 10.2 (f)  in compliance with Union law, including competition law, collaborate with other entities, including, where relevant, in order to increase the company’s ability to prevent or mitigate the adverse impact, in particular where no other measure is suitable or effective.

Article 10.6 As regards potential adverse impacts as referred to in paragraph 1 that could not be prevented or adequately mitigated by the measures set out in paragraphs 2, 4 and 5, the company shall, as a last resort, be required to refrain from entering into new or extending existing relations with a business partner in connection with which, or in the chain of activities of which, the impact has arisen and shall, where the law governing their relations so entitles them, take the following actions, as a last resort

Article 11.3 (a) – (h)

Article 11.7 

Article 12 Remediation of actual adverse impacts

1. Member States shall ensure that, where a company has caused or jointly caused an actual adverse impact, the company provides remediation.

2. Where the actual adverse impact is caused only by the company’s business partner, voluntary remediation may be provided by the company. The company may also use its ability to influence the business partner that is causing the adverse impact to provide remediation.

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 

13.2  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

Article 13.3 . Consultation of stakeholders shall take place at the following stages of the due diligence process: 

(a) when gathering the necessary information on actual or potential adverse impacts, in order to identify, assess and prioritise adverse impacts pursuant to Articles 8 and 9; (b) when developing prevention and corrective action plans pursuant to Article 10(2) and Article 11(3), and developing enhanced prevention and corrective action plans pursuant to Article 10(6) and Article 11(7);  (c) when deciding to terminate or suspend a business relationship pursuant to Article 10(6) and Article 11(7);  (d) when adopting appropriate measures to remediate adverse impacts pursuant to Article 12;  (e) as appropriate, when developing qualitative and quantitative indicators for the monitoring required under Article 15.

13.4. Where it is not reasonably possible to carry out effective engagement with stakeholders to the extent necessary to comply with the requirements of this Directive, companies shall consult additionally with experts who can provide credible insights into actual or potential adverse impacts. 

13.5. In consulting stakeholders, companies shall identify and address barriers to engagement and shall ensure that participants are not the subject of retaliation or retribution, including by maintaining confidentiality or anonymity. 

13.6. Member States shall ensure that companies are allowed to fulfil the obligations laid down in this Article through industry or multi-stakeholder initiatives, as appropriate, provided that the consultation procedures meet the requirements set out in this Article. The use of industry and multi-stakeholder initiatives shall not be sufficient to fulfil the obligation to consult the company’s own employees and their representatives. 

13.7. Engagement with employees and their representatives shall be without prejudice to relevant Union and national law in the field of employment and social rights as well as to the applicable collective agreements

Article 15 Monitoring

Member States shall ensure that companies carry out periodic assessments of their own operations and measures, those of their subsidiaries and, where related to the chain of activities of the company, those of their business partners, to assess the implementation and to monitor the adequacy and effectiveness of the identification, prevention, mitigation, bringing to an end and minimisation of the extent of adverse impacts. Such assessments shall be based, where appropriate, on qualitative and quantitative indicators and be carried out without undue delay after a significant change occurs, but at least every 12 months and whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that new risks of the occurrence of those adverse impacts may arise. Where appropriate, the due diligence policy, the adverse impacts identified and the appropriate measures that derived shall be updated in accordance with the outcome of such assessments and with due consideration of relevant information from stakeholders
 

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 39

In order to ensure that due diligence forms part of companies’ policies and risk management systems, and in line with the relevant international framework, companies should integrate due diligence into their relevant policies and risk management systems and at all relevant levels of operation, and have in place a due diligence policy. The due diligence policy should be developed in prior consultation with the company’s employees and their representatives and should contain a description of the company’s approach, including in the long term, to due diligence, a code of conduct describing the rules and principles to be followed throughout the company and its subsidiaries, and, where relevant, the company’s direct or indirect business partners and a description of the processes put in place to integrate due diligence into the relevant policies and to carry out due diligence, including the measures taken to verify compliance with the code of conduct and to extend its application to business partners. The due diligence policy should ensure a risk-based due diligence. The code of conduct should apply in all relevant corporate functions and operations, including procurement, employment and purchasing decisions. For the purposes of this Directive, employees should be understood as including temporary agency workers, and other workers in non-standard forms of employment provided that they fulfil the criteria for determining the status of worker established by the CJEU.

Recital 41
 

Under the due diligence obligations provided for in this Directive, a company should identify and assess actual or potential adverse human rights and environmental impacts. In order to allow for a comprehensive identification and assessment of adverse impacts, such identification and assessment should be based on quantitative and qualitative information, including the relevant disaggregated data that can be reasonably obtained by a company.

Companies should make use of appropriate methods and resources, including public reports. For instance, as regards adverse environmental impacts, the company should obtain information about baseline conditions at higher risk sites or facilities in its chain of activities.

As part of the obligation to identify adverse impacts, companies should take appropriate measures to map their own operations, those of their subsidiaries and, where related to their chains of activities, those of their business partners, in order to identify general areas where adverse impacts are most likely to occur and to be most severe. Based on the results of such mapping, companies should carry out an in-depth assessment of their own operations, those of their subsidiaries and, where related to their chains of activities, those of their business partners, in the areas where adverse impacts were identified to be most likely to occur and most severe.
 

With a view to limiting the burden on smaller companies created by requests for information, where information necessary for the identification of adverse impacts can be obtained from business partners at different levels of their chains of activities, companies should exercise restraint with regard to business partners that do not themselves present risks of adverse impacts and favour reaching out, where reasonable, directly for more detailed information to business partners at levels in their chains of activities where, based on the mapping, actual or potential adverse impacts are most likely to occur.

Identification of adverse impacts should include assessing the human rights and environmental context in a dynamic way and at regular intervals: without undue delay after a significant change occurs, but at least every 12 months, throughout the life cycle of an activity or relationship, and whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that new risks may arise.

Reasonable grounds to believe that there are new risks may arise in different ways, including learning about the adverse impact from publicly available information, through stakeholder engagement, or through notifications. If, despite having taken appropriate measures to identify adverse impacts, companies do not have all the necessary information regarding their chains of activities, they should be able to explain why that information could not be obtained and should take the necessary and reasonable steps to obtain it as soon as possible.

Recital 65

In order to conduct meaningful human rights and environmental due diligence, companies should take appropriate measures to carry out effective engagement with stakeholders, for the process of carrying out the due diligence actions. Without prejudice to Directive (EU) 2016/943, effective engagement should cover providing consulted stakeholders with relevant and comprehensive information, as well as ongoing consultation that allows for genuine interaction and dialogue at the appropriate level, such as project or site level, and with appropriate periodicity.

Meaningful engagement with consulted stakeholders should take due account of barriers to engagement, ensure that stakeholders are free from retaliation and retribution, including by maintaining confidentiality and anonymity, and particular attention should be paid to the needs of vulnerable stakeholders, and to overlapping vulnerabilities and intersecting factors, including by taking into account potentially affected groupings or communities, for example those protected under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and those covered in the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.

There are situations in which it will not be possible to carry out meaningful engagement with consulted stakeholders, or where engagement with additional expert perspectives is useful to allow the company to comply fully with the requirements of this Directive. In such cases, companies should additionally consult with experts, such as civil society organisations or natural or legal persons defending human rights or the environment in order to gain credible insights into actual or potential adverse impacts.

The consultation of employees and their representatives should be conducted in accordance with relevant Union law, and where applicable, national law and collective agreements, and without prejudice to their applicable rights to information, consultation and participation, and in particular those covered by relevant Union legislation in the field of employment and social rights, including Council Directive 2001/86/EC and Directives 2002/14/EC and 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. For the purposes of this Directive, employees should be understood as including temporary agency workers, and other workers in non-standard forms of employment provided that they fulfil the criteria for determining the status of worker established by the CJEU.

When carrying out consultations, it should be possible for companies to rely on industry initiatives to the extent that they are appropriate to support effective engagement. The use of industry or multi-stakeholder initiatives is not in itself sufficient to fulfil the obligation to consult workers and their representatives.

Recital 59
 

Companies should provide the possibility for persons and organisations to submit complaints directly to them in case of legitimate concerns regarding actual or potential human rights and environmental adverse impacts. Persons and organisations who could submit such complaints should include persons who are affected or have reasonable grounds to believe that they might be affected and the legitimate representatives of such persons on behalf of them, such as civil society organisations and human rights defenders; trade unions and other workers’ representatives representing individuals working in the chain of activities concerned; and civil society organisations active and experienced in the areas related to the environmental adverse impact that is the subject matter of the complaint. Companies should establish a fair, publicly available, accessible, predictable and transparent procedure for dealing with those complaints and inform the relevant workers, trade unions and other workers’ representatives about such procedures. Companies should also establish an accessible mechanism for the submission of notifications by persons and organisations where they have information or concerns regarding actual or potential adverse impacts. In order to reduce the burden on companies, they should be able to participate in collaborative complaints procedures and notification mechanisms, such as those established jointly by companies, for example, by a group of companies, through industry associations, multi-stakeholder initiatives or global framework agreements. The submission of a notification or complaint should not be a prerequisite or preclude the person submitting them from having access to the substantiated concerns procedure or to judicial or other non-judicial mechanisms, such as the OECD national contact points where they exist. The provisions on the complaints procedure and notification mechanism under this Directive should be such as to avoid that access to a company’s representatives leading to unreasonable solicitation. In accordance with international standards, persons submitting complaints, where they do not submit them anonymously, should be entitled to request from the company timely and appropriate follow-up and to meet with the company’s representatives at an appropriate level to discuss actual or potential severe adverse impacts that are the subject matter of the complaint and potential remediation, to be provided with the reasoning as to why a complaint has been considered founded or unfounded and, where considered founded, to be provided with information on the steps and actions taken or to be taken by the company. Companies should also take reasonably available measures to prevent any form of retaliation by ensuring the confidentiality of the identity of the person or organisation submitting the complaint or notification, in accordance with national law. The terms ‘fair, publicly available, accessible, predictable and transparent’ should be understood in line with principle 31 of the UN Guiding Principles requiring procedures to be legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, transparent, rights-compatible and a source of continuous learning, as also referred to in the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment No 16. Workers and their representatives should also be properly protected, and any non-judicial remediation efforts should be without prejudice to encouraging collective bargaining and recognition of trade unions, and should by no means undermine the role of legitimate trade unions or workers’ representatives in addressing labour-related disputes. Companies should ensure accessibility of the notification mechanisms and complaint procedures for stakeholders, taking due account of relevant barriers.