The risk of an accusation of “greenwashing” is now an important concern for many companies. Greenwashing is an ill-defined concept but, nevertheless, is increasingly a source of litigation and regulatory scrutiny – with more of both expected. It carries with it reputational, regulatory and litigation risks for which companies should be prepared. Whilst the risks are always context specific – varying by jurisdiction, industry
On 30 November 2022, the Council of the European Union (the “Council”) adopted its negotiating position on the European Commission’s proposal for a corporate sustainability and due diligence directive (the “Draft Directive”). As discussed in our previous blog posts (which you can read here and here), the proposed Draft Directive set out an EU standard for human rights and environmental due diligence (“HREDD”) and required EU member states to introduce legislation making in-scope companies responsible for violations of HREDD standards across their entire value chain. This meant that companies would have to conduct HREDD on their suppliers and clients, and could be held liable for how their products and services are used and disposed of. Although the fundamental principles of the proposed Directive remain intact, the Council’s suggested amendments to the Draft Directive do include some important changes.
On 10 November 2022, the EU Parliament adopted the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (“CSRD“). The EU Council is expected to adopt the CSRD on 28 November 2022, after which it will be published in the Official Journal. The CSRD will then enter into force 20 days after publication and EU member states will have 18
On 3 October 2022, the European Commission (“Commission”) adopted a revised notice on informal guidance (“Revised Notice”) that provides an expanded mechanism for businesses to obtain enhanced comfort – through so-called “guidance letters” – on the application of the EU competition rules to novel or unresolved questions.
The Revised Notice permits businesses that have doubts
Companies have long been awaiting some more clarity on their reporting obligations vis à vis the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (SCDDA). The BAFA has now shed some light on what is expected of the reporting entities by publishing 38 detailed questions (in addition to some general information on the reporting entity) covering the whole spectrum of due diligence obligations under the SCDDA.
Companies have a substantial impact on human rights when carrying out their business activities. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights set the expectation that companies conduct human rights and environmental due diligence (“HREDD“) with respect to their business activities, which includes assessing and responding to actual and potential human rights issues.
The expectation for companies to conduct HREDD is increasingly becoming mandated by legislators across the globe. For example, in Germany the Supply Chain Due Diligence Act will enter into force on 1 January 2023. It is arguably the most comprehensive law in this area to date, since in-scope companies will have to comprehensively analyse their global supply chains, assess the risks within their supply chains and act accordingly. Further, in the European Union an equivalent directive is upcoming. The European Commission’s draft corporate sustainability and due diligence directive (the “Draft Directive“) – which is anticipated to be adopted in 2023 – sets out a proposed HREDD standard, under which companies will be obliged to identify actual and potential adverse human rights and environmental issues arising from their operations or those of their subsidiaries and, where related to their value chains, from their “established business relationships” (for more information on the Draft Directive, read our earlier blog posts here and here). Involving and engaging stakeholders in a meaningful way will be critical for in-scope companies to successfully implement HREDD processes and ensure compliance with these obligations.
To help companies engage with stakeholders, the UN Global Compact Network Germany (“GCNG“) – an organisation created to assist companies in meeting their human rights-related responsibilities – has recently published its “What makes stakeholder engagement meaningful? 5 insights from practice” report (the “GCNG Report“). The GCNG Report highlights five “selected success factors” that companies can adopt to help ensure their engagement with stakeholders is effective and meaningful.
Continue Reading Business and Human Rights: meaningful stakeholder engagement in due diligence
On 17 August 2022, the Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control (Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle, “BAFA”) has issued its first handout to provide guidance to companies currently implementing a risk management system to comply with the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (“SCDDA”). The document is aptly titled
In response to growing investor demand for information concerning companies’ sustainability-related financial risks, the sustainability disclosure landscape has rapidly changed over the last decade. In what marks one of the latest developments to the sustainability disclosure landscape, on 29 April 2022, the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (“EFRAG“) – a private organisation that provides technical assistance to the European Commission – issued its initial draft European Sustainability Reporting Standards (“ESRS“) for public comment. The ESRS, which EFRAG were tasked with preparing by the European Commission as part of the proposed Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (“CSRD“), set out proposed requirements for companies to report on sustainability-related impacts, opportunities and risks under the CSRD.
On 23 February 2022, the European Commission published its much-anticipated draft corporate sustainability and due diligence directive (the Draft Directive), after a number of delays (see our Previous Blog). The Draft Directive sets out a proposed EU standard for human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD). This includes an obligation for companies to take appropriate measures to identify actual and potential adverse human rights and environmental impacts arising from their own operations or those of their subsidiaries and, where related to their value chains, from their “established business relationships”. The Draft Directive also provides a mechanism for sanctions to be imposed for non-compliance with the due diligence obligations and provides for director responsibility and accountability in relation to a company’s HREDD programme.
Whilst the Draft Directive remains subject to further legislative scrutiny and approval, it provides the most detailed insight yet as to the scope and form of the prospective EU HREDD obligations, and it provides a helpful template for corporates to continue developing their due diligence policies and procedures designed to identify, assess and mitigate adverse human rights and environmental impacts – both in their operations and in their supply chains.
In a recent Blog Post on May 28, 2021, we discussed a landmark court ruling issued by the Hague District Court in May 2021[1], requiring Royal Dutch Shell (Shell) to reduce the CO₂ emissions of the Shell group by net 45% in 2030, compared to 2019 levels. In a statement on July 21, 2021, Shell confirmed that it will appeal against this decision. In the meantime – and pending any final determination – Shell remain bound by the earlier court ruling.
In this Blog Post, we highlight key aspects of the Hague District Court’s decision and Shell’s recent decision to appeal.
Continue Reading ESG Litigation: Shell to Appeal Court Ruling in Netherlands Climate Case