ArcelorMittal

It is unclear if the entity is making this statement in support or opposition to the proposal. The entity further appears to indicate uncertainty regarding the protected rights and seems to question their applicability to non-government actors.

... The best way to harmonize these provisions is to have a principle-based and not a provision-based approach, making the international standards mentioned in the proposal (United Nations' Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct) the core of the Proposal. ... material norms which could be violated by adverse impacts and make up a key element of the Directive are not defined and, more importantly, are mostly government-to-government standards."

The entity appears to suggest caveats to the proposal that would significantly lower the ambition of the policy with regards to indicator Q1.2

"ArcelorMittal agrees that, though the wording of article 3a of the Proposal would induce that due diligence requirements should be carried out at company level, article 5 indicates that groups can share resources within the group. Therefore, individual legal units do not have to include due diligence requirements in their management report when the Group “include the information required … as part of their sustainability reporting”. In this regard, we agree that this proposal needs further clarification in order to include a group and, in line with CSRD article 19.7 subsidiaries shall be exempted if their report is included in the consolidated management report. This will avoid reporting to be overburdensome and fragmented. In addition, we find it concerning that, if this solution is not taken, subsidiaries will fall within the competence of different supervisory authorities, opening the door to different interpretations."

The entity does not support pecuniary fines based on turnover as a means to enforcing the HRDD duties as set out in the proposal (see Commission Adoption Article 20 para 3).

"ArcelorMittal supports rejecting turnover-based fines, but rather to focus on the proportionality between the severity of the offence and the gravity of the sanction (severity of the infringement; intentionality; risk for the property, physical integrity, and interests of the citizens; damage; type and size of the breach; repetitive nature of the breach)."

The entity appears to question the feasibility of the proposed directors' duty of care regarding HRDD.

"... director's person responsibility to put in place and oversee due diligence actions might not only overlap with national laws directors' duty of care but also create legal uncertainty about when decisions are lawful and unlawful."

The entity appears to suggest a further limiting of the civil liability. It remains unclear what form this limitation should take. However, in the context of the entity's statement regarding the definition of the term 'stakeholder' in line with the Plaumann decision of the ECJ, it appears that at least a limitation of the personal scope is suggested. The entity further indicates a need for clarification of certain terminology and legal concepts.

"... ArcelorMittal supports redefining the definition of stakeholder along the lines of the Plaumann vs Commission European Court of Justice case. The lack of definition impacts specially the civil liability regime proposed in the Directive. ... We agree that the civil liability regime needs to be further limited and clarified. Additionally, the criterion of imputation needs to be explicitly established (willfulness, fault, risk). As the Directive establishes an obligation of means and not of result, objective liability should be limited."

The entity appears to suggest caveats to the downstream value chain coverage. However, it does not appear to oppose the requirement as such. Furthermore, the entity is asking for clarification regarding the terminology of 'established business relationship'.

"ArcelorMittal supports the Commission’s approach, and it acknowledges the importance of a value chain due diligence, including the upstream and downstream supply chain. In this regard, ArcelorMittal will make its best efforts to include the whole value chain in its due diligence. However, it should be recognized that due diligence of the downstream supply chain may pose difficulties compared to upstream due diligence. Large companies such as ArcelorMittal face a greater challenge as we will need to make additional efforts to gather data from our customers. In this regard, we propose to include a “safe harbor” for downstream supply chain and/or a phase in period that would allow companies to adapt first to the upstream supply chain due diligence process and once consolidated, move to the inclusion of the whole value chain in its due diligence."

The entity suggests a limitation in the definition of the term 'stakeholder'.

"... ArcelorMittal supports redefining the definition of stakeholder along the lines of the Plaumann vs Commission European Court of Justice case."

The entity suggests a limitation in the definition of the term 'stakeholder'.

"... ArcelorMittal supports redefining the definition of stakeholder along the lines of the Plaumann vs Commission European Court of Justice case."

The entity suggests a limitation in the definition of the term 'stakeholder'.

"... ArcelorMittal supports redefining the definition of stakeholder along the lines of the Plaumann vs Commission European Court of Justice case."