It was truly incredible to see you all in Geneva this week ✨
None of us here are underestimating the scale of what we’re working towards.
In fact, it’s quite the opposite. It’s because we understand the magnitude of the challenge that coming together in community feels so important, grounding, and energising. 🤝
I am in awe – truly – of what we are building together. Of what each of you are doing to advance human rights in business, day in, day out, on the good days, and even more so in the bad days.
When I wrote this post about how amazing the business and human rights community is, I meant every word. 💙
And here are my takeaways from Geneva, drafted as my plane was taking off ✈️
And here are Human Level’s reflections from the week.
And see below for the latest on the Omnibus (EU CSDDD-focused) and what you can do next.
And here’s to another wild and important week next week in the world of business and human rights, but until then, wishing you a restful weekend 🌿
Anna ✨
🚨 EU CSDDD Trilogues: a quiet risk with big consequences for business
If EU negotiators don’t align behind the Parliament’s view on the scope of due diligence (Article 8), companies will soon face two parallel due diligence regimes:
1. Due diligence as the term will be defined in the EU CSDDD, and
2. Due diligence as the term is defined in other laws & soft law
You might think:
What’s the big deal? The EU legal duty will simply replace the other one.
But no, not so fast!
Companies will still need to look beyond Tier 1 because:
🔹 Other laws are using the international definition
🔹 Import bans look beyond T1
🔹 Investors and stock exchanges expect value chain visibility
🔹 Reputational risks will continue
🔹 Civil society will use other laws and strategies
The result?
More complexity. Companies will need to implement two human rights due diligence systems
Higher costs. Companies will need to spend more on Tier 1 than they would otherwise need to
Legal confusion. Companies won’t know when enough is enough, as a range of other laws will be used to bring lawsuits against them for impacts beyond Tier 1
This is still avoidable!
We have a workable solution on the table: the European Parliament’s Article 8 text on scope of due diligence duty (minus the constraints on what companies can request)
So companies, here are some things to consider:
📌 If you’re sitting back, ask yourself: will I regret it one year from now when I am navigating two due diligence systems?
📌 Can I connect my Public Affairs team with our operational due diligence team to align internally on a position on Article 8?
📌 If I am backing (individually or through a trade association) the Council or Commission’s view on the scope of due diligence, are there other internal drivers for where to conduct due diligence that may make this choice costly?
📌 Can I take a stronger position with my trade association and connect with Council-facing policymakers?
The window to influence is open – and closing fast.
A number of players are speaking up.
See here for a statement from UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk who warns against the creation of two parallel systems (one for compliance, and one for international standards), and here for one from Teresa Ribera, executive vice-president of the European Commission for a Clean, Just and Competitive Transition, who warns the EU not to become a rule taker in a system shaped elsewhere
Over to you business. What’s stopping you from pushing for a unified view on the scope of due diligence?
This is not a rhetorical question: I want to hear your perspectives!
If you are advocating for a Tier 1 approach, or not playing any role now in the Trilogues, please share with me why - email or DM me if you can’t be public, or drop a comment on my LinkedIn post. 🙏
