3.1-3.8 Collaborative production planning

Article 9, Prioritisation of identified actual and potential adverse impacts.

1. Member States shall ensure that, where it is not feasible to prevent, mitigate, bring to an end or minimise all identified adverse impacts at the same time and to their full extent, companies prioritise adverse impacts identified pursuant to Article 8 in order to fulfil the obligations laid down in Article 10 or 11.

2. The prioritisation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on the severity and likelihood of the adverse impacts.

3. Once the most severe and most likely adverse impacts are addressed in accordance with Article 10 or 11 within a reasonable time, the company shall address less severe and less likely adverse impacts.

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.

To determine the appropriate measures referred to in the first subparagraph, due account shall be taken of:

(a) whether the potential adverse impact may be caused only by the company; whether it may be caused jointly by the company and a subsidiary or business partner, through acts or omissions; or whether it may be caused only by a company’s business partner in the chain of activities; (b) whether the potential adverse impact may occur in the operations of a subsidiary, direct business partner or indirect business partner; and (c) the ability of the company to influence the business partner that may cause or jointly cause the potential adverse impact.

Article 10.2  Companies shall be required to take the following appropriate measures, where relevant:

(a) where necessary due to the nature or complexity of the measures required for prevention, without undue delay develop and implement a prevention action plan, with reasonable and clearly defined timelines for the implementation of appropriate measures and qualitative and quantitative indicators for measuring improvement; companies may develop their action plans in cooperation with industry or multi-stakeholder initiatives; the prevention action plan shall be adapted to companies’ operations and chains of activities; (b) seek contractual assurances from a direct business partner that it will ensure compliance with the company’s code of conduct and, as necessary, a prevention action plan, including by establishing corresponding contractual assurances from its partners, to the extent that their activities are part of the company’s chain of activities; when such contractual assurances are obtained, paragraph 5 shall apply; (c) make necessary financial or non-financial investments in, adjustments or upgrades of, for example, facilities, production or other operational processes and infrastructures; (d) make necessary modifications of, or improvements to, the company’s own business plan, overall strategies and operations, including purchasing practices, design and distribution practices; (e) provide targeted and proportionate support to an SME which is a business partner of the company, where necessary in light of the resources, knowledge and constraints of the SME, including by providing or enabling access to capacity-building, training or upgrading management systems, and, where compliance with the code of conduct or the prevention action plan would jeopardise the viability of the SME, by providing targeted and proportionate financial support, such as direct financing, low-interest loans, guarantees of continued sourcing, or assistance in securing financing; (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.

10.3. Companies may take, where relevant, appropriate measures in addition to the measures listed in paragraph 2, such as engaging with a business partner about the company’s expectations with regard to preventing and mitigating potential adverse impacts, or providing or enabling access to capacity-building, guidance, administrative and financial support such as loans or financing, while taking into consideration the resources, knowledge and constraints of the business partner.

Article 11, Bringing actual adverse impacts to an end.

11.1. Member States shall ensure that companies take appropriate measures to bring actual adverse impacts that have been, or should have been, identified pursuant to Article 8 to an end, in accordance with Article 9 and with this Article.

To determine the appropriate measures referred to in the first subparagraph, due account shall be taken of:

(a) whether the actual adverse impact is caused only by the company; whether it is caused jointly by the company and a subsidiary or business partner, through acts or omissions; or whether it is caused only by a company’s business partner in the chain of activities; (b) whether the actual adverse impact occurred in the operations of a subsidiary, direct business partner or indirect business partner; and (c) the ability of the company to influence the business partner that caused or jointly caused the actual adverse impact.

11.2. Where the adverse impact cannot immediately be brought to an end, Member States shall ensure that companies minimise the extent of that impact.

11.3. Companies shall be required to take the following appropriate measures, where relevant:

(a) neutralise the adverse impact or minimise its extent; such measures shall be proportionate to the severity of the adverse impact and to the company’s implication in the adverse impact; (b) where necessary due to the fact that the adverse impact cannot be immediately brought to an end, without undue delay develop and implement a corrective action plan with reasonable and clearly defined timelines for the implementation of appropriate measures and qualitative and quantitative indicators for measuring improvement; companies may developtheir action plans in cooperation with industry or multi-stakeholder initiatives; the corrective action plan shall be adapted to companies’ operations and chains of activities; (c) seek contractual assurances from a direct business partner that it will ensure compliance with the company’s code of conduct and, as necessary, a corrective action plan, including by establishing corresponding contractual assurances from its partners, to the extent that their activities are part of the company’s chain of activities; when such contractual assurances are obtained, paragraph 6 shall apply; (d) make necessary financial or non-financial investments in, adjustments or upgrades of, for example, facilities, production or other operational processes and infrastructures; (e) make necessary modifications of, or improvements to, the company’s own business plan, overall strategies and operations, including purchasing practices, design and distribution practices; (f) provide targeted and proportionate support to an SME which is a business partner of the company, where necessary in light of the resources, knowledge and constraints of the SME, including by providing or enabling access to capacity-building, training or upgrading management systems, and, where compliance with the code of conduct or the corrective action plan would jeopardise the viability of the SME, by providing targeted and proportionate financial support, such as direct financing, low-interest loans, guarantees of continued sourcing, or assistance in securing financing; (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; (h) provide remediation in accordance with Article 12.

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 Article.

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.

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); (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.

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

When identifying, and assessing adverse impacts, the company should take into account, based on an overall assessment, possible relevant risk factors, including company-level risk factors, such as whether the business partner is not a company covered by this Directive; business operation risk factors; geographic and contextual risk factors, such as the level of law enforcement with respect to the type of adverse impacts; product and service risk factors; and sectoral risk factors. When identifying and assessing adverse impacts, companies should also identify and assess the impact of a business partner’s business model and strategies, including trading, procurement and pricing practices.

 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.

 A significant change should be understood as a change to the status quo of the company’s own operations, operations of its subsidiaries or business partners, the legal or business environment or any other substantial shift from the situation of the company or its operating context. Examples of a significant change could be cases when the company starts to operate in a new economic sector or geographical area, starts producing new products or changes the way of producing the existing products using technology with potentially higher adverse impacts, or changes its corporate structure via restructuring or via mergers or acquisitions.

Recital 46

So as to comply with the prevention and mitigation obligation provided for in this Directive, companies should be required to take the following appropriate measures, where relevant. Where necessary due to the complexity of prevention measures, companies should develop and implement a prevention action plan.

Where relevant, companies should adapt business plans, overall strategies and operations, including purchasing practices, and develop and use purchasing policies that contribute to living wages and incomes for their suppliers, and that do not encourage potential adverse impacts on human rights or the environment. To conduct their due diligence in an effective and efficient manner, companies should also make necessary modifications of, 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.

 Adopting and adapting such practices, as necessary, could be particularly relevant for the company, to avoid an adverse impact in the first instance. Such measures could also be relevant to address adverse impacts that are jointly caused by the company and its business partners, for instance due to the deadlines or specifications imposed on them by the company. In addition, by better sharing the value along the chain of activities, responsible purchasing or distribution practices contribute to fighting against child labour, which often arises in countries or territories with high poverty levels.

Companies should also provide targeted and proportionate support for a small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) which is a business partner of the company, where necessary in light of the resources, knowledge and constraints of the SME, including by providing or enabling access to capacity-building, training or upgrading management systems, and, where compliance with the code of conduct or the prevention action plan would jeopardise the viability of the SME, providing targeted and proportionate financial support, such as direct financing, low-interest loans, guarantees of continued sourcing, or assistance in securing financing. The notion of ‘jeopardising the viability of an SME’ should be interpreted as possibly causing a bankruptcy of the SME or putting the SME in a situation where bankruptcy is imminent.

Recital 47

Tackling harmful purchasing practices and price pressures on producers, particularly smaller operators is especially important in relation to sales of agricultural and food products. In order to address the power imbalances in the agricultural sector and ensure fair prices at all links in the food supply chain and strengthen the position of farmers, large food processors and retailers should adapt their purchasing practices, and develop and use purchasing policies that contribute to living wages and incomes for their suppliers. By applying only to the business conduct of the largest operators, that is, those with a net worldwide turnover of more than EUR 450 000 000, this Directive should benefit agricultural producers with less bargaining power.

Moreover, given companies formed in accordance with the law of a third country are equally subject to this Directive, this would protect agricultural producers in the Union against unfair competition and against harmful practices by operators established not only inside but also outside the Union.

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

Companies should also make financial or non-financial investments, adjustments, or upgrades aiming at ceasing or minimising the extent of adverse impacts, and collaborate with other companies, in compliance with Union law. Where relevant, companies should adapt business plans, overall strategies, and operations, including purchasing practices, and develop and use purchasing policies that contribute to living wages and incomes for their suppliers, and that do not encourage actual adverse impacts on human rights or the environment.

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.

Adopting and adapting such practices, as necessary, could be particularly relevant for the company to avoid an adverse impact in the first instance. Such measures could also be relevant to address adverse impacts that are jointly caused by the company and its business partners, for instance due to the deadlines or specifications imposed on them by the company. In addition, by better sharing the value along the chain of activities, responsible purchasing or distribution practices contribute to fighting against child labour, which often arises in countries or territories with high poverty levels.

Companies should also provide targeted and proportionate support for an SME which is a business partner of the company, where necessary in light of the resources, knowledge, and constraints of the SME, including by providing or enabling access to capacity-building, training, or upgrading management systems.

Where compliance with the code of conduct or the corrective action plan would jeopardise the viability of the SME, companies should provide targeted and proportionate financial support, such as:

• Direct financing,
• Low-interest loans,
• Guarantees of continued sourcing, or
• Assistance in securing financing.

The notion of ‘Jeopardising the viability of an SME’ should be interpreted as possibly causing a bankruptcy of the SME or putting the SME in a situation where bankruptcy is imminent.
 

Annex 6: 
The right to enjoy just and favourable conditions of work, including a fair wage and an adequate living wage for employed workers and an adequate living income for self-employed workers and smallholders, which they earn in return from their work and production, a decent living, safe and healthy working conditions and reasonable limitation of working hours, interpreted in line with Articles 7 and 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Annex 6: 
The right to enjoy just and favourable conditions of work, including a fair wage and an adequate living wage for employed workers and an adequate living income for self-employed workers and smallholders, which they earn in return from their work and production, a decent living, safe and healthy working conditions and reasonable limitation of working hours, interpreted in line with Articles 7 and 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.