Ross McKeown

Subscribe to Ross McKeown's Posts
United Kingdom - London

As part of national plans to cut carbon emissions, the UK Cabinet Office released a Procurement Policy Note on 5 June 2021 (“PPN 06/21“, or the “PPN“): this mandates the assessment of Carbon Reduction Plans by UK central government departments as part of the procurement of large public contracts.

Key aspects of the Public Procurement Notice

  • UK Procurement Policy Note 06/21 requires a bidder for large public contracts (exceeding £5 million per annum) to produce a Carbon Reduction Plan (CRP) setting out how it intends to achieve ‘net zero’ carbon emissions by the year 2050 (compared to 1990 levels).
  • This relates to regulated contracts for goods, services and/or works awarded by UK central government departments, their executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies.
  • This will apply to procurement processes commenced on or after 30 September 2021 – bidders should take steps now to prepare for compliance, which might require new data collection and reporting procedures.

Continue Reading ESG and UK Public Procurement: Carbon Reduction Requirements

European Union - EU - Brussels

On 21 April 2021, the EU Commission announced its proposal to extend existing sustainability reporting in a new Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).  The proposal, which revises the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (the “NFRD“), will extend the reach of sustainability reporting to more companies and will cover more sustainability topics.

This is part of a wider, concerted effort by the EU to legislate for greater E, S and G reporting and accountability standards, like the EU’s proposed mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence law.  It is also part of a larger global trend: for example, New Zealand recently introduced a new Climate Disclosure Law (see our Blog Post on this here). Companies are increasingly embracing voluntary sustainability reporting but there are increased demands for mandatory reporting – the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) for instance called for mandatory reporting in December last year. However companies’ standards of  voluntary reporting are of variable quality and often do not address the impacts of companies’ business activities on people and the environment.

Key aspects of the proposed Sustainability Reporting Directive:

  1. More companies would be asked to report on sustainability, up from 11,000 previously to nearly 50,000.
  2. The “double materiality perspective” is further reinforced – that is companies have to report on the impact of their business activities on people and the planet across the full value chain, as well as the sustainability risks for the business itself, and to disclose the process for determining their material issues.
  3. Measurements of sustainability will be more consistent, reliable, and therefore comparable, for investors and other stakeholders.
  4. Timing is subject to change, but it is expected these measures would take effect in 2024, i.e. reporting on the financial year ending 2023.

Continue Reading EU Moves Toward Comprehensive Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive

This month, the American Bar Association (the “ABA“) published a Report on its suggested Model Contract Clauses to Protect Workers in International Supply Chains (the “MCCs“).

While the MCCs are not put forward as a binding standard, they do provide food for thought for companies who are seeking to align their supply chain contracts with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (the “UNGPs“), and the increasing tide of mandatory human rights due diligence legislation (see more on this impending legislation here).

Key takeaways:

  1. The aim of the MCCs is to align drafting in international supply chain contracts with existing human rights due diligence standards and obligations, with a view to providing “operational guidance for mapping, identifying and addressing human rights risks at every tier of the supply chain” and seeking to help companies “implement healthy corporate policies in their supply chains in a way that is both legally effective and operationally likely.”
  2. In aligning supply chain contracts with existing obligations and requiring reasonable due diligence by both contract parties, the MCCs seek to address what could be considered an imbalance in the typical negotiation of supply chain contracts where, traditionally, a buyer has tended to shift all responsibility for human rights issues to the supplier.
  3. The publication of the MCCs pose some interesting considerations for buyers negotiating supply chain contracts. For example, to what extent is it reasonable for the supply chain contract to reflect the stance that abuses of workers’ rights occurring in global supply chains is a shared responsibility of both buyers and suppliers? The cooperative approach submitted is very different to the traditional oppositional relationship between buyer and supplier, where buyers seek to ensure that any and all responsibility for adherence to prescribed human rights standards falls to suppliers by requiring representations and warranties from suppliers on a “strict liability” basis.

Continue Reading Human Rights Due Diligence in Supply Chain Contracts: A Shared Responsibility of Buyer and Supplier?