(Brussels) – European Union member states should reject attempts to weaken proposed EU directives that require businesses to respect human rights and the environment, Human Rights Watch said in a letter to the European Union Council. Stated. Council members are expected to finalize their views on the proposed EU Corporate Sustainability Directive by 1 December 2022.
Any proposal (including one from Germany) aimed at narrowing the scope of the Directive or limiting civil liability would greatly weaken the proposed Directive.
Companies throughout the value chain must fall within the scope of the Directive.
Aruna Kashyap, associate director of corporate accountability at Human Rights Watch, said: “Efforts to narrow the scope of the Directive and limit the ability of victims of corporate abuse to bring their case to European national courts will be a significant step forward. “It works better for companies than it does to protect people who have suffered.” “The Security Council should reject these efforts and send a strong message that the EU supports victims of corporate abuse, not against them,” she said.
Human Rights Watch said the amendments proposed by the German government would undermine the Directive’s goal of holding companies accountable in court, and would render many victims of human rights violations in global value chains legally unacceptable. Human Rights Watch said it would leave them helpless.
Human Rights Watch has seen the German government’s proposal, which was circulated among council members in late October but has not been made public. It seeks to limit civil liability only where a company fails to comply with certain obligations under the proposed EU Directive “intentionally or negligently”. Civil liability is an important avenue to seek justice in European national courts for victims of corporate abuse who have experienced human rights and environmental harm.
November 24 marks the 10th anniversary of the Tazreen factory fire in Bangladesh that killed more than 100 garment workers. Germany’s proposal to reduce civil liability would make it much more difficult for victims of corporate abuse, such as the Tazreen fire, to bring civil lawsuits in the national courts of her EU member state. Its recommendations are intended to give companies space to create a “safe harbor” and avoid liability.
In addition, Germany considers civil claims to be It recommends narrower limits in the event of “substantial negligence”. ” Corporate side.
Rather than making it harder for victims, the directive should place the burden on companies to prove that they have conducted human rights and environmental due diligence. Furthermore, the Directive should not allow businesses to claim a defense of due diligence to avoid all liability for harm that leads to death, permanent disability, or irreversible or intergenerational harm. .
Some industry groups have called for immunity from liability if certified, which contradicts the German government’s stated coalition commitment to “effective” legislation in the EU. Giving a company immunity simply because it is accredited or part of an industry or sector initiative exempts it from objective scrutiny by the courts and allows the company itself and the sectors in which it participates. Decide whether to hold the initiative, or the certification body they employ, responsible. obeyed the law.
Social audits and certification programs have proliferated over the last few decades in response to public pressure to show companies that they comply with international human rights and environmental standards. Some products have a label attached to the product stating that the product meets the standards. Exact numbers are difficult to pin down, but one source, the Ecolabel Index, lists 456 “ecolabels” in a searchable database. These labels carry a symbol or logo that indicates an “environmentally favorable product, service, or company.”
Policy makers and ethical consumers need to recognize that certification is not a panacea for human rights and environmental harm. Avoiding liability simply because a company is certified is a costly mistake that puts lives and the environment at risk, Human Rights Watch said.
Certification schemes rely on privatized inspections known as social audits. They may contain serious flaws, according to Human Rights Watch research. Audits typically take just a few days, leaving insufficient time for auditors to interview workers, track leads, and corroborate information in a secure location off-site. Audits conducted over several days run a high risk of missing abuses, especially child labor, forced labor, harassment and discrimination.
The scope of audits is heavily influenced by large companies and the suppliers that fund them. Companies can choose “friendly” auditors who are more tolerant or show a willingness to turn a blind eye to human rights violations. Some suppliers undergoing audits “prepare” for these audits by hiring consultants to create fake records and instructing workers and managers to “pass” and become certified. going. The risk of such deception increases when auditors announce their arrival in advance.
The audit and certification industry remains opaque. Since the underlying private inspection reports upon which certifications are based are rarely made public, anyone can speculate as to why or how a company was certified, and such certifications should be used as the basis for limiting liability. It emphasizes why it is not.
Hundreds of people died in preventable disasters, a tragic reminder of the inadequacy of social audits and certifications. The 2013 Rana Plaza building collapse in Bangladesh and the 2019 Brumadinho dam collapse are among the most devastating tragedies involving audited or certified sites. A Brazilian congressional investigation into the collapse of the dam found that mining companies had pressured third-party auditors to falsely certify that the dam was safe. cannot be viewed as a short cut in the course of measures that should be taken to prevent and respond to such disasters.
“The German government’s proposal is an insult to the victims who are suffering because of the companies,” Kashyap said. “Germany should become a champion of human rights by advocating legislation that enables victims of corporate abuse to seek legal remedies.”
