BANKS DODGY DEALS CAMPAIGNS
About BankTrack
20 years of BankTrack – Our history
Visit us
Organisation
Our team
Our board
Guiding principles
Team up with us
Jobs at BankTrack
Our annual reports
Funding and finances
BankTrack in the media
Our privacy policy
Donate
2023-09-18 00:00:00
New report and blog: Barclays' bond with Adani
2023-08-23 00:00:00
Decarbonization: steel not making the cut
2023-07-27 00:00:00
Two months ago 62 organizations and 3 Goldman Environmental Prize winners wrote an Open Letter to the TNFD: No one responded
2023-07-13 00:00:00
The Sustainable Steel Principles: One step forward when leaps are needed
2023-09-15 17:34:10
The number of major banks refusing to support EACOP reaches 24
2023-07-31 14:30:01
Equator Principles recognise projects’ risk to climate for the first time
2023-05-17 14:30:30
EACOP Financial Advisor SMBC is no longer involved with the project
2023-03-28 13:43:00
French bank Société Générale withdraws from Rio Grande LNG
Connect
2023-09-18 00:00:00
Barclays' bond with Adani
2023-06-26 00:00:00
How should financiers align with the Global Biodiversity Framework? Five Key Principles
2023-04-13 00:00:00
Banking on Climate Chaos 2023
2023-04-12 00:00:00
The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP): Finance Risk Update No. 4
See all publications
Sections
Banks Dodgy Deals Campaigns
Our campaigns
Banks and Climate
Banks and Human Rights
Banks and Nature
Banks and Pandemics
Our projects
Tracking the NZBA
End Coal Finance
Banks and Putin's war in Ukraine
Banks and steel
Tracking the Equator Principles
Tracking the PRBs
Find a Better Bank
Banks and the OECD Guidelines
Media
News Publications
Fossil Banks No Thanks StopEACOP Forests & Finance Banks & Biodiversity Drop JBS Bank of Coal Don't Buy into Occupation
BankTrack
About BankTrack 20 years of BankTrack – Our history Visit us Organisation Our team Our board Guiding principles Team up with us Jobs at BankTrack Our annual reports Funding and finances BankTrack in the media Our privacy policy Donate
Successes Contact BankTrack
Donate Mailing list Facebook Twitter Login
Home › BankTrack news ›
BankTrack News

EU vote on corporate sustainability due diligence fails to fully recognise key role of human rights defenders

Ahead of key vote in European Parliament plenary, over 60 civil society organisations sign statement calling for language on HRDs to be strengthened in final CSDDD text
2023-05-03
By: BankTrack, Accountability Counsel, Amazon Watch, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, CEE Bankwatch Network, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), EarthRights International, Forest Peoples Programme, Friends of the Earth US, Front Line Defenders, Global Witness & Rainforest Action Network
Contact:

Ryan Brightwell, Campaign Lead Banks and Human Rights, BankTrack

EU Flag. Photo: Wikimedia Commons (Håkan Dahlström from Malmö, Sweden)
2023-05-03
By: BankTrack, Accountability Counsel, Amazon Watch, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, CEE Bankwatch Network, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), EarthRights International, Forest Peoples Programme, Friends of the Earth US, Front Line Defenders, Global Witness & Rainforest Action Network
Contact:

Ryan Brightwell, Campaign Lead Banks and Human Rights, BankTrack

Last week the European Parliament’s legal affairs (JURI) committee adopted its position on the proposed EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. Amid strong pressure, the text is a significant step towards ensuring mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence across the full value chain. It includes several important improvements and goes a long way towards aligning with the UN Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights and OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

However, as organizations working closely with Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) across the globe, we are concerned that the text, compared to the European Parliament (EP) Rapporteur’s draft, the human rights, development and environment committees’ opinions and other positions, constitutes a missed opportunity to explicitly recognise and protect defenders as affected and legitimate stakeholders.

Defenders play a critical role in protecting human rights and the environment, but their work exposes them to enormous risks, too often resulting in reprisals and tragically the loss of life.

In 2022, Front Line Defenders and its HRD Memorial partners documented the death of 401 defenders worldwide – 48% of whom were HRDs defending land, environmental and indigenous peoples’ rights.

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) documented over 4,700 attacks on defenders related to business activities since 2015, which highlights this is a salient human rights issue in many business sectors. In a report released on Wednesday, BHRRC shows that 555 attacks took place in 2022 alone, revealing that on average more than 10 defenders were attacked every single week for raising legitimate concerns about irresponsible business activity. Indigenous defenders and communities continue to face disproportionate risks. Additionally, BHRRC data shows that approximately 1/3 of all attacks in 2020 stem from a lack of consultation or the failure to secure the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of affected indigenous peoples and affected local communities with customary tenure rights. In many cases, attacks can be traced directly back to business actors: for example, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) are one well-documented tactic used by businesses to stop people raising concerns.

At the same time, while there is growing business acknowledgement of HRDs as affected stakeholders, the particular risks and impacts they face are still not sufficiently recognised by many EU companies. The 2021 UN Working Group on Business & Human Rights’ authoritative guidance clearly states that lead firms may cause, contribute to or be linked to such impacts across their value chains.

In light of the above, the final JURI text, despite promising elements regarding stakeholder engagement, reference to the Aarhus Convention and FPIC, as well as removal of some obstacles to access to justice, misses out on covering human rights defenders more comprehensively and explicitly beyond ‘other stakeholders’ to be consulted. There must be no ambiguity regarding the urgency of engaging with HRDs and ensuring their protection from retaliation and other adverse impacts as affected stakeholders.

A recent Front Line Defenders report documented three case studies – from Colombia, India and Uganda – demonstrating how HRDs and their communities would be better protected by a strong EU Directive that explicitly places defenders at its core.

For ILC, the protection of land and environmental defenders remains a top priority. The draft EU law is a huge step forward for communities across the globe. But to be effective it must be explicit in protecting Human Rights Defenders and how one can enforce those rights in case of violations
Eva Maria Anyango Okoth, HRD from Kenya, and the Senior Program Officer for Africa at the International Land Coalition (ILC)

As the negotiations move to the next step, the plenary vote in the European Parliament and then the trilogue negotiations, we reaffirm that to fully protect and recognise HRDs, it is critical that the legislation avoids ambiguities in protections and retains strong language that had been included in earlier drafts, including the EP Rapporteur’s proposal and the opinions from the human rights, development and environment committees. At a minimum we recommend that the final text of the Directive as agreed by co-legislators:

  • explicitly includes Human Rights Defenders as affected stakeholders in the corresponding stakeholder definition and covers them as such in provisions on mandatory stakeholder engagement, grievance mechanisms and non-retaliation;
  • similarly recognises organizations protecting human rights and the environment in the same definition and provisions; and
  • includes the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which breaks down key human rights for the specific context of defenders, in the Annex, along with important additional references e.g. to the Escazú Agreement.

We also point to concerns outlined by civil society organizations about the text’s remaining shortcomings regarding access to justice and other areas, both for defenders and all other rightsholders.

Statement originally published by Business & Human Rights Resource Centre and Front Line Defenders. See the full version and a complete list of signatories here.

Sections
Banks Policies Dodgy Deals Campaigns
Our campaigns
Banks and Climate Banks and Human Rights Banks and Nature Banks and Pandemics
Our projects
Tracking the NZBA End Coal Finance Banks and Putin's war in Ukraine Banks and steel Tracking the Equator Principles Tracking the PRBs Find a Better Bank Banks and the OECD Guidelines
Media
News Publications
Fossil Banks No Thanks StopEACOP Forests & Finance Banks & Biodiversity Drop JBS Bank of Coal Don't Buy into Occupation
BankTrack
About BankTrack 20 years of BankTrack – Our history Visit us Organisation Our team Our board Guiding principles Team up with us Jobs at BankTrack Our annual reports Funding and finances BankTrack in the media Our privacy policy Donate
Successes Contact BankTrack
Vismarkt 15
6511 VJ Nijmegen
The Netherlands
Contact@banktrack.org
Donate Mailing list Facebook Twitter
©2023 BankTrack
BankTrack is a registered charity in the Netherlands (ANBI) - RSIN 813874658
Find our privacy policy here

Stay up to date

Sign up now for all BankTrack's news


Make a comment

Your comment will be reviewed, before being posted