Articles for tag: CSDDDEUWirtschaft und Menschenrechte

Dividing the Indivisible

The absence of a number of important human rights instruments from the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, notably for indigenous peoples’ and migrants’ rights, are serious omissions and must be rectified at the EU level during the first review of the directive. Given the status of the CSDDD as a directive, Member States also have the freedom to add these missing instruments during national transposition and should do so in order to further honour their commitments under the UNGPs.

Effective Human Rights Due Diligence Ten Years After Rana Plaza?

Ten years after the deadly Rana Plaza disaster with 1135 dead and more than 2000 injured workers, a complaint has been made for the first time on the basis of the German Act on Corporate Due Diligence Obligations in Supply Chains (Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz, LkSG) to the Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control (Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle, BAFA). The complaint argues that IKEA and Amazon failed to exercise due diligence under the LkSG by refusing to sign the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh (Bangladesh Accord) and its successor, the International Accord for Health and Safety in the Textile and Garment Industry (International Accord). In this post, we explore the relationship between the Accord and human rights due diligence and argue that joining the Accord is essential for fulfilling the due diligence obligations under the LkSG. We argue that Amazon seems to have violated the LkSG prima facie while IKEA’s claim would have to be assessed in-depth by BAFA.

A Defining Moment for the UN Business and Human Rights Treaty Process

The ongoing process to negotiate a UN treaty on business and human rights has its 8th annual session this week in Geneva. Though embraced by many NGOs, this initiative has so far failed to secure widespread support amongst states with wide divergences remaining regarding the proposed instrument’s objectives and design, as well as its relationship to the UN 2011 Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, an earlier soft law instrument championed by governments, businesses and international actors. Yet there may be light on the horizon.

Moving Beyond Token Participation

The concept of human rights due diligence was developed over the past decade as a way for companies to grapple with adverse human rights violations and impacts connected to their business practice, including within their value chains. In February of this year, the European Commission published a proposal for European Union-wide mandatory human rights due diligence for companies that fall under its scope. For such legislation to succeed in advancing the rights of the most affected and to lead to better human rights outcomes for rights-holders, it is crucial to anchor such laws and regulations with not only the perspective of rights-holders but their ongoing involvement. To do otherwise would miss an invaluable opportunity to improve the landscape of business and human rights to center rights-holders in the years to come.

Enforcing Due Diligence Obligations

The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive creates an innovative mix of enforcement mechanisms. It relies on both administrative oversight and judicial enforcement through civil liability. Additionally, accountability of businesses for affecting stakeholder interests is strengthened by a specific environmental, social, and corporate governance duty of care for directors and obligations to link directors’ pay to climate obligations, thus ensuring that directors need to steer businesses in light of stakeholder interests. This system has the potential to effectively oblige companies to respect stakeholder interests, although some weaknesses, especially in access to justice, remain.

Due Diligence Around the World

On 23 February 2022, the EU Commission released its draft Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD). It follows – and seemingly takes inspiration from – several national mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD) laws, notably in France, (“LdV”) Germany (“GSCDDA”) and Norway (“Transparency Act”). It provides a strong legal basis and innovations to enhance corporate accountability, to strengthen stakeholder value and to create a European and possibly global standard for responsible and sustainable business conduct.

Recognising Nuances

This week, the German Parliament is beginning its debate on the cabinet draft for a national Due Diligence Act (Sorgfaltspflichtengesetz). Critics of Germany’s initiative often claim that it would run counter to the development interests of the Global South. This, however, not only ignores strong development policy arguments in favour of human rights due diligence (HRDD) regulation but also the fact that several countries in the Global South are calling for similar obligations or have already created them. In particular, Germany may learn valuable lessons from the Colombian Constitutional Court’s recent case law which has created meaningful HRDD obligations for companies as well as from a draft for a Mexican Due Diligence Act.

Gestaltungsmöglich­keiten und Notwendigkeit einer umweltbezogenen Sorgfaltspflicht

Die Initiative Lieferkettengesetz strebt eine gesetzlich verankerte und sowohl menschenrechts- als auch umweltbezogene Sorgfaltspflicht für Unternehmen in Anlehnung an die UN-Leitprinzipien für Wirtschaft und Menschenrechte an. Auf Verfahrensebene soll eine die gesamte Wertschöpfungskette erfassende Risikoanalyse durchgeführt und unter anderem die Ergreifung angemessener Maßnahmen zur Beendigung, Abmilderung und Wiedergutmachung von Menschenrechts- und Umweltbeeinträchtigungen vorgesehen werden. Im Folgenden werden die Notwendigkeit einer eigenständigen umweltbezogenen Sorgfaltspflicht und denkbare Möglichkeiten ihrer rechtssicheren Gestaltung dargelegt.

Globale Gefahren und nationale Pflichten

Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat in seinem BND-Urteil die extraterritoriale Geltung der Grundrechte festgeschrieben. Zwar geht es in der Entscheidung nur um die Abwehrdimension der Grundrechte - doch sie enthält dennoch auch Ansätze dazu, ob auch die Schutzdimension der Grundrechte extraterritorial gilt. Das betrifft auch grundrechtliche Schutzpflichten gegenüber Menschen in transnationalen Wertschöpfungsketten deutscher Unternehmen. Insofern könnte das Urteil der aktuellen Debatte um ein sogenanntes „Lieferkettengesetz“ einen neuen Impuls geben.

Germany’s Moral Responsibility to Support a Treaty  on Business and Human Rights

In a massive conglomeration called the Treaty Alliance, leading human rights NGOs around the world together with many luminary academics are calling for a treaty between states on business and human rights that would seek to prevent human rights violations by businesses from occurring and ensure they do not go unpunished, or at least uncompensated. Such a treaty is necessary given the need to address a number of problems in international law that have prevented victims of human rights violations from being able to gain remedies against errant corporations.