What is more beautiful than being there, at the heart of democracy? The hardest is to be in this place of power and to see that when it comes to justice, climate change, immigration, colossal issues like these, we are not able to do what we need to do. And that is extremely frustrating.
It's not theoretical anymore. The changes that needed are urgent. They're not only urgent, but they're done in a generation of politicians at least.
I can't say anymore, later when I grow up, or well, there's all these experienced people that'll take care of things. There's an expectation for my generation now, and that makes it all feel very, very real. When you accumulate this work and the work of being a mother, you don't have time to deal with the bullshit part of politics. In the parliament you have to constantly change roles.
At one point you're with the journalists, then you're negotiating, then on the radio, then you have to resolve an internal conflict, the next moment you have reading to do to prepare yourself. Every moment you have to do something else. That requires a lot of energy and concentration.
And that's really difficult to handle. It's hard. I wish I could spend my Monday morning in the office asking myself, Hey, from the Dutch Industry Association.
So that's from 9.15 till 10. And then at 10, the Q&A starts. And I understand that you will go first as rapporteur. So I think you've got three minutes to ask whichever questions. you want to ask the panelists.
Yeah. Fine, let's go. Okay, great.
Let's have them down there. How are we doing for time? Do we have time to make a coffee?
Yeah. Okay. So coffee and then we go.
The European Parliament is like a minute. It's all these people who do things together. It's great, but it also puts pressure on you not to mess up.
You have a responsibility towards your cause, towards your employees, because you are supposed to lead. In the European Parliament, you hold the pencil. You are really responsible for the outcome. You are really delivering the law.
Alright, lots of interest. Lots of interest this morning. Okay, I'm on German. I'm on German, yes. German okay.
English. Okay, French. Okay, Italian.
Yes, okay, Danish. Good morning. Good morning, Daniel. Okay, Romanian.
Okay, thank you. SNI ready. It's 9.07, so I commend you all for your punctuality this morning.
I think it's not a secret that what we're going to do here is a huge project. The goal of this legislation, how can we make sure that... We actually now make a difference when it comes to environmental destruction, when it comes to the protection of human rights, when it comes to ensuring that the way that we do business in the 21st century is a sustainable way of doing business. So how can we make sure that companies think from risk and from impact rather than from where they have the most power?
Yes, we want clarity for the companies that need to be doing their due diligence, but very importantly, what we want most of all, and that's the raison d'être of this directive, is we want impact and we want improved outcome. My message is very simple. This proposal will not in any way bring a level playing field. The liability provisions of the proposal are unclear and unworkable for companies.
Take the example of a... company building a truck, a truck may last 40, 50 years, maybe sold 20 times in 14 countries, how can you ever follow as a company during the whole value chain your product? I think that's simply not.
What are the means you use when you defend yourself in court? And do you think victims have the equivalent means to defend themselves in court? Thank you. The real change has to come from a complete reflection of what businesses do and how they do it.
what we think business places in society, of what kind of decisions the board of directors should make. And that involves a law that forces them not to look away and that forces them to go into the industry and how they're making their stuff. If you walk into a clothing store, you want to know that what you sell from in the door that what you buy there is not the same thing. You don't want to go check the labels or go into their website. And whether you decide to buy this pair of socks or not, it's not going to change the world.
But the decisions of this giant of distribution on how to produce these socks, they can change the world. There is no duty of surveillance of multinational companies if we do not make them responsible for their purchases, their supplies, in the entire production chain. In other words, you take a Nike garment, a Zara garment, The company, the home of Nike or Zara, can't say, can't say anymore, it's not my fault, it's the fault of my supplier. It costs less to go and produce in Bangladesh or in China, and no matter whether it's... forced labor from Uyghurs, it costs less, so it's more business.
That's the model we're working on today, this directive, hence the mobilization also in the face of the lobbies, because it's the business model of these big companies we're working on. Manon, I admire her energy because what she is occupied with. In addition to being the head of her group, she is very active in French politics.
She has enough work for three jobs. Yet, every time she participates in negotiations, she has the energy to fight for what she believes in. She has a real motivation.
And Heidi, I see like a brilliant politician who doesn't need to make huge government postures or because she's been there and she does what she wants to do and she does what she thinks is right. And to me that's very reassuring to have Heidi stamp of all because I know that she's seen it all. Maybe I am in between.
And I think that what's good about this trio is that we bring something different to the table. You know, I remember the day when I read that the UN had agreed that if the states had the primary responsibility to protect human rights, human rights, companies had the duty to respect them. And I said to myself, wow, this is really something radically new and different. But then in 2017, some very sort of engaged NGOs came to me and said, look, it's time to start something in the European Parliament, because the Parliament could be the place to put legislation on companies and human rights.
And I said, wow, that's a nice idea, so let's do it. To get a majority, Heidi, Manon and I, we have to negotiate with the other European Parliament groups. We have to find a way to convince the liberal Democrats of the Renew group and the Christian Democrats of the PPE to follow us.
That is not the most easy thing to do. We're under surveillance here. Anyone who doesn't take progressive enough a position, you know, is silenced here.
Exactly. Who can be the most ambitious left-wing politician in the room? Okay.
To me, extremely important was that we continue to take the whole value chain approach in all of our reports. Companies do need to look at the entire value chain, even if it's complicated, even if it's far away, even if it means looking at 10,000 different sub-suppliers, because if we don't do that and if we say, well, we'll just have a look at what happens in our first tier of suppliers, then we don't get to the source of the problems, because the problems are often closer to raw material. closer to low-wage countries or factories where things are being put together for us, the problems are not in our sub-supplier in Luxembourg or whatever. I heard today from Axel Voss, From the EPP, there's a hit list with legislative proposals that need to be killed.
And so on SMEs, I think that we've got a big battle ahead of us. What I've said in my report is SMEs should be included in this if they're in high-risk sectors. So, for instance, garments, footwear.
But we've got a list of what's high-risk and if they are listed SMEs. And with the EPP? There is a total shift. Basically, we are in a situation in which, contrary to the prior negotiations, either they shut up... Or they block.
The EPP negotiator is not personally used to due diligence. So it means it's a group issue. Greens and left are obviously on our side.
But you are never sure that the Renew negotiator is actually able to control the whole group of Renew. And they might split. And if you lose Renew votes... I think it's actually quite worrying, to tell you the truth.
We can all see that Renew will be hugely important here, and in a sense they are kingmaker, and at the same time Renew is a difficult group because I've still not established whether Renew is looking to the left or to the right, so to speak, whether they're liberal or progressive, and I think that it's a very mixed bag there that's difficult to do business with. It's clear that the EPP puts a lot of weight politically behind their claim. that they do not want to have more legislation which puts burden on companies regardless of the topic so in environment in labor in due diligence so this is clearly their political message at the moment we cannot do anything more. EPP is difficult to do business with because we are essentially not sure if we can trust them and I think that There might be the trick that we've seen in the past of moving us, you know, towards a compromise and having us agree that we put water in the wine only to, at the end of the day, when it comes to the vote, having us vote on a weaker proposal that then they still vote against.
And that's really a nasty situation to be in that we need to avoid. Hello, good morning. I just wanted to hear if you're okay for a moment.
And just to make sure that we have a short moratorium. ...the auditorium and tell them how the situation is there and then discuss the so-called red lines. Right?
Yes, good. That means they all know what it's about and we can then actually get started. And of course, as always, in English. Yeah, yeah, yeah, good, but...
The Christian Democrats, I think, realized that... It seems to me that they understood that times are changing, and that it will happen with or without them. So it's better that they are.
Yeah, okay, see you later, ciao. But it's very difficult to negotiate with them, because internally, they have a hard line of people... But now it was again also this question how we can support the companies in a way.
But I already mentioned and what we should do somehow. And I hope we will have... this time in going detailed through all these problems that might occur practically. I hope we will take our time for this.
We should. It's extreme pressure. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know.
Well, I heard it this morning also. Whatever this means in detail, but this would be kind of a goal for me now, to convince people that data is... This is a responsibility that we outsource to you. Yes, yes, yes.
But then, if we can reach a certain point to balance these better in a way, but I know I understand also we have to serve on your side also in a way. Yeah. It's, I mean, it's what we said this morning. Nobody's going to be fully happy in the end. We, from my side, the only, the only criterion is. is that it has to make a difference.
If we end up with something that is so watered down on all sides that it's just, you know, that is not an option. It is 3D chess in Brussels. There are member states that have an opinion. There is the European Commission, which has a lot of power. And there are your colleagues in the Parliament.
Some like you and others don't. And you need to get everyone happy to get a result. And it's hard.
Heidi, any on-on organization or otherwise anything that we still need to know? It's a good composition actually. and four important MEPs from four groups. Absolutely. Absolutely.
All right. I think you are more... I'm here. Okay.
Thank you so much for hosting this, we are really really grateful. We all know we have to come to a balanced approach and we are trying to contact a lot. I'm so happy to hear that.
Well as you will see the balance is very much in the room as well because we are really on the one hand a business coalition, a lot of German businesses as well, but we are also a very strong partner. So my organization is a human rights organization with a business background. It's a human rights organization. So that's our only goal in the end.
I hear a lot about Shein these days. Yeah, it's pronounced Shee-in. I don't know why, but that's the way the Chinese pronounce it.
Yes, it's very difficult. They have a huge market share now. There's lots of videos on Instagram apparently from people buying a whole huge box of of clothes and then saying I only paid five euros for it or whatever. Which also means you can throw it away again, right?
So it's in all ways it's completely unsustainable. No, no, it's not something to be neglected. It's like the Alibaba of clothing. I think it's a very difficult proposition. Also from the environment point of view, although that's not my strong point.
Yeah, landfill. Yeah, landfills. When we talk about cowboy companies and we don't want... Responsible companies being undercut by cowboy companies, I always get the question of so which ones, which is the most? Is it Primark?
Is it Shee-In? I should say, you know that question and it's yeah at some point also it's very clear. it just doesn't work.
I mean consumers have not asked for throw-away garments. If the offer hadn't been there people wouldn't see it. Yeah they wouldn't be saying we need this. No.
Why would you buy a coat and throw it away? It doesn't make sense right? But that's the business model we've gotten into. So I think it's also makes business sense.
The garment sector has been listed as a high-risk sector, and I don't think anybody doubts that this is the case if we look at what has happened in the world. For instance, the... The Rana Plaza factory fire and the collapse of the roof in 2013 was a reminder of this sort of stark situation. We need the engagement of the whole of the EU.
to make sure that we are not just curing our bad conscience of too much consumerism, but that we will achieve a change in the ground, in the countries where people are producing for us. A sector that is high risk, highly fragmented, and also highly complex. So the fragmentation makes it very difficult to come to collective action and to impact. And that's why we need a directive.
The concept of due diligence is quite... quite, is not known at all. It's quite new for governments, labor unions and also for manufacturers. They hope, they hope for a way of working that values partnerships.
European brands and retailers hold the keys to real impact. We have also to be careful not to see the companies at the end as a kind of an enemy and to find out also how we can help them at the end to fulfill these goals. because these goals are all goals what we would like to achieve. And on this file in particular, all those considerations are huge ones, of course.
We have to be prescriptive enough so that this is workable for companies, so that they know what is expected. And then others say, on the other hand, no, no, we cannot be too prescriptive because this directive needs to fit for everybody, so you cannot go into too much detail. So it's a luxury for me today to reflect on those questions because at the end of the day, we... we will need to have answers to those questions, and those answers, as Axel rightly pointed out before, are going to hurt for everybody. Well, I think the worst kind of populism for me is people who say that it's going to be bad for business.
Why did the world, why did the United States stop slavery? Was it the right time? It certainly was the right time. It's the right time now to stop the suffering of the millions of people who are in the shadow of the companies that produce for us. Of course, we can't predict the future.
We can't avoid mistakes. But we still have to dare. We should dare to make big decisions. If we don't make them now, it promises us a rather unpleasant future. A lot has changed here.
Look at that island over there. What's that? What's that?
This is the bottom of the tree. Oh, right. That's not there.
There's only a tree. What's that? This is just a tunnel. I don't know how it will change. This Nordic zone, not quite Arctic, but almost, it changes.
The climate changes faster than in many other regions. So yes, you can see it here. For example, the most exotic plants spread further north.
We discover strange butterflies, new species of birds. Yes, it's very visible. Today we cannot be satisfied with a change that is not revolutionary, because the challenges are enormous.
Climate change, the disappearance of biodiversity. Poverty, exclusion, lack of meaning in life, all that. And the suffering of people. The fact that 40 million people are more or less in forced labour conditions. If we think that this change can really improve the lives of people who suffer because of irresponsible companies, then it is difficult to imagine a better mission in politics.
Thank It's interesting, there's this kind of global echo chamber of support to normalize Qatar. The Economist wrote an article about this, many newspapers. I mean, it's almost like these political groups are being helped by...
Definitely. Definitely. The media?
Yeah, the media, the lobbies. I mean, just look at the capacities of the NGOs that are working on human rights abuses and just compare it with the capacities of the companies and of the categories. embassy has nothing to do and to say something about the way you know just that they hear the story because for them those are not human stories these are just like a random negotiation where the mission is just to please get out when you go back into the meeting can you bring that human dimension that's what we always try but they were so far away from it to just don't They were just like, okay, the right wing and EPP was just complaining that in one hour we only covered three paragraphs and we need to get this done.
This needs to be the lowest common denominator and the smallest resolution possible. But the only thing I care is whether the resolution is useful for victims in Qatar. But they don't.
I just wonder if you'll try to appeal to their... humanity again when you go into the room. I just find that the European Parliament is killing the humanity. I just, you know, when you sit here in the room and you have everything you need, and you've always been in that life, it's just killing humanity.
Those people don't have humanity. And I think the institution is pushing towards it. Maybe in 15 years if I stay here I'm not going to have humanity either.
You need to walk out of this Parliament to have humanity. and I don't. It wasn't at all an evidence for me to do politics. I worked in the associative sector. My first thought was to tell myself that politics is not made for me.
But at the same time, thinking about it, talking a lot with my entourage, they told me that I had a chance to be the head of the list for a national election. and you say no because the political environment is rebuking you, but if all the disgusted people leave politics, only the disgusting people remain. And even if you are given the opportunity, you don't go, it means that nobody is delighted. by the political environment. I must say that four years later, I have no regrets, and sometimes I find the political environment as disgusting as it is, but at the same time, we haven't found anything else to change the world.
Is there such a great injustice? Is there such a great injustice? Should we get you out of the chair?
Yes? The fact of the matter is that if you want to achieve results, you don't have to take things too seriously. Your motivations have to be very personal. Your motivations, your vision and your perspectives have to be very personal.
Those are the very essence of what you are. Interpretable, why you fight, what you believe in, always have to remind you why you do these things. People were forced to work in such a way that they were imprisoned. There was no facility or any other means of living. The smell of denim clothes was very strong.
This cloth soaked in chemicals used to cause headache. We used to go near the windows to get fresh air, but it used to be closed. What you say is that these are very high societies. These are societies that are on a permanent level of humanity and human rights.
Their friends who come to our countries and do atrocities, who do animalism, who take cheap clothes, they are the hard work of our blood and sweat. It's not because you're not paying the price for your T-shirt that someone else, elsewhere in the world, is not paying it. The idea that it would be beneficial for our consumers to be able to buy good products and for our companies to make big profits without thinking about what we are doing in the long term, that's a kind of cannibalism, isn't it?
By way of background, the Responsible Business Alliance is an organization dedicated to the vision and mission of responsible business conduct. We represent eight separate industries that do over $8 trillion in... total sales and they conduct manufacturing in over 120 different countries around the world with large and compact supply chains numbering in the literally of thousands and thousands of individual factories. Governments worldwide are paying more attention than ever to supply chain management. Well-designed regulation can focus attention to the boardroom and lift the companies that are falling behind closer together.
But an uncoordinated proliferation of policies and laws undermines the abilities of business to play their role by creating more confusion, more cost, and less impact, and less legal certainty. but most impactful of all for us directly are the mandatory due diligence laws that are popping up in jurisdictions all around the world ladies and gentlemen the fastest way to our sustainability green future is by building on what already exists last night I was at a documentary screening called discount workers and that's a document about a factory fire in Pakistan. And the families of those killed, the families that the documentary centered on, still haven't had justice. And 15 years on, they are still fighting through courts to get justice for those that they lost. The factory in question made clothes for a German retailer named Customer is King.
Kick in German. You may have heard of them. That... phrase customers King sounds outdated and tone-deaf even in 2023 now a due diligence strategy that never leaves the boardrooms will be blind to what is happening and therefore will fail to stop abuse that's what I'm asking for here oversight and responsible decision-making that is the direction I want the EU to head in and I hope that it's a direction that we can travel in together thank you very much Companies have to be aware that when they do not follow their obligations, then there will be consequences. On every law, there must be consequences if they are not followed.
The peasant in Uganda who is forced to move because Total decided that his oil well was there and that he had business to do on it. If the Uighur worker in forced labor camps in China who makes clothes that in the end participate in I don't know which Chinese-type company, etc. 1. Will they be able to access justice? 2. Will companies be financially sanctioned? And so, three, do we dissuade this type of behavior so that in the future it no longer exists?
And that must be the only compass. Yeah, and you can really have your operation there, you divide it into four in your country, I don't know, we'll stay in Uganda to make it simple, and each of these subsidiaries is linked to subsidiaries in different countries. And so your first subsidiary concerned by the directive, each time it will be a subsidiary in a different country.
And we go back in time until we find the first European subsidiary. The turnover will be lower than the subsidiary on site. Let's say you have 100 million turnover, and you go up to 40 million.
Do you take the 100 million minimum or the 40 million as a reference? Because in the end, if we have 7.5% of 40 million, or even 2 million for a company as a whole, they don't give a damn. I'm still wondering what our manoeuvre margin is in practice to change the sanctions properly. But I'm really afraid that we have sanctions that are...
who knows? So it's already quite a concession. But wouldn't that suggest that if there's sufficient remedial action, that affected stakeholders could not take free protection? Well, that's the logic of the text. My character helps me a lot in order to...
But I'm pragmatic because I know that to get results, you have to compromise. And most of the time, things get better by having others give input too. The worst nightmare would be that this law becomes a paper tiger, that it doesn't change much and that it is seen as a missed opportunity. So I'm okay, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this.
So this is to check? That's the text that's been circulated to everyone on our behalf. So you need to maybe just have in mind how you choreography that. Larabor-related disputes, y'all.
Yeah, that's the one. There are these two. Okay. Text under 5B.
I have to find the wording on 5B. But you can look further. The money comments are there. Yeah, but this is a good point that you made.
It will take dozens, hundreds of hours of negotiation and discussion. But there is a strong alliance of people, organizations, companies that work together. So if we fail, we fail together. It is of course so that everyone works for themselves, their party and their clientele. But we are all aware that we can only progress by looking for solutions together.
We have managed to create a non-conflictual atmosphere in which we have tried to find a balance in some way between our different positions. Yeah, that's milk. That's for you.
It's a dessert for you. I'm going to put on his pyjamas. I'm very, very lucky because I have my parents who live next door.
I have my sister who lives next door. They help me enormously. This would not be possible without them. And then from time to time, my husband's parents come from Greece and there's a moment where I need to make this work. Hi!
Hello! Could you talk with Aidy? Yesterday, yeah.
My impression is the more we go, the more concessions we're giving them, especially we're giving like we got the latest draft late yesterday and I have to say that there were a lot that were given. And I think that there's a couple where... the limit is reached now.
There again, what they're trying to do is actually rewrite what due diligence means, right? The whole question is now we're getting into the general package. If we were to give up on this, this cannot be at the expense of the reversal of burden of the proof, of the administrative sanction and the level of sanction, of all of the other things that are problematic. So for me, now what we need to discuss is where do we want to land? For me. if we could get to a sort of no bullshit scope as we discussed before.
If we can divert from a disaster on value chain in both excluding business and in that intra-EU thing that Axel wants. If we can have at least three out of four of the conditions on access to justice that I've always said we need if we're going to give up on the burden of proof. And if we can maintain the financial services scope. For me, I think on other things we can move. Let's say that the things I just mentioned are sort of my red lines.
Which ones do you have to add that you really feel where you cannot go? So financial sector, I've mentioned it. The disclosure of the mapping of the value chain.
As I said, this is something that might sound small, but in terms of small things we can get. Publication of sanction. is really one of the distressing tools.
Of course, if a company is known to have been sanctioned, well, of course, this will be used, including by investors and others, to find the trust of companies. So now if we talk about strategy, what I can do as a first intervention is just say, look, this is everything we've been losing. Just to remind everyone that it's already compromised, that it's going into one single direction. At some point we can discuss also the three of us, Heidi, you and me, and we can agree on like this is the final package where we can land, and then you can have also separate discussion with EPP and Renew and to test bilaterally how far we can go on the... And I would not set an agreement as long as all of those things are on the table.
And I think it's fine. They can also understand that you want to cooperate with the left as much as you want to cooperate with the right wing. But we'll need that because again, if we have a package and we lose on all of these fronts, then we're out.
Alright. Good. May the force be with you.
Yeah, me too. That should be the correct wording, right? May the force be with us. With us, yeah. Or those who are going to die greet you.
Yeah, I don't know. Alright. Stop the button. Stop the button.
The first day of There are a lot of candy supply chain going on. Okay, well our rooms are getting bigger and bigger as we progress. Now the stakes are really high, you know, we have to feel it. Alright, I will go and get inside. We will wait for the others a little bit.
And yeah. You should hold something like a kind of a water pistol just to... If I'd known, if I'd known that anything was allowed at this point.
Axel's brought a massive amount of M&Ms. Yeah, that's what they said. I guess I'm going to have to do it.
Maybe I can just do it. I'm going to have to do it. I'm going to have to do it. All right. Thanks all for being here.
Thank you also to those joining us online. As you will know, This is a bit of a special Shadows meeting because potentially this is our last Shadows meeting. We found it important to make sure that we've got enough time to be able to have an overview of issues that are still...
sensitive politically and that we haven't been able to resolve thus far and i think that helps our work because at the end of the day i think everyone at the end of this meeting needs to look at what's on the table and judge whether or not they think that that's acceptable to their political group at some point we'll see if the glass is half full or half empty It's a classic problem in politics. Do you say, it's not enough, I'm not signing, or do you say, it's not what I wanted, but it's a step forward, so I'm signing. So just for your information, the EPP will vote against Article 8A?
To my knowledge, EPP not supporting the compromise on 8A is new information, so I don't think we were aware of that. Larara will be the one who can try to find the compromise with Renew or with the right and the far-right. Now it means one thing.
It's about making the Renew group, more pro-business, follow us. Heidi wants the floor on Menel, so we'll do that first. But overall, I think the compromise including the new Article 8a is acceptable to us. And we'll go to ECR on this.
We have to value it. And I don't think those compromises have been done in exchange for something else. Axel, you wouldn't be against good governance. You cannot. I don't see why we should align....points not to convince my party, then...
How can we help you to convince your party? But we have given many, many concessions to you, even today, you know? So from your side, a bit of flexibility might be a nice...
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, all right. And the SMEs, I think you got most. What you wanted?
SMEs. Which was the issue for you? So I've actually got a proposal to make on the financial sector, but I'm going to... We're going to park that and we're going to come to it because we need to make the most of our time with Raphael and with Timo about the annexes on human rights and on environmental impacts.
We'll go first to Timo online. So Timo. Okay. Thank you very much, Larara.
I cannot support more watering down of the language. If this is going to happen, I will not vote in favor of this. I didn't do this to keep the EPP on board and they said in the last second we are out. And I'm not going to risk this again. I don't want to be humiliated.
And so to be pretty clear for me, this is not an option. So, and Axel, sorry, everything you say, it sounds like you will try your utmost with your group. But there is literally no guarantee.
You can call me stupid. But this is not gonna happen again, sorry. Okay, let's say 10 minutes so that there's a bit of time and then we will come back to this. They were very good again.
I don't... exactly, and I don't want things to get... I mean, I understand people's emotions, but I...
It's important that we deescalate a little bit. Yeah, yeah. So, the question will come to the final package.
Yeah. I mean in the other can be chemicals. I'm going to give you a crazy question.
We need to redraft also with your help. But we continue now with the next point. What we discussed.
Could we return to our plenary setting? Perhaps we start with Renew because this was your request. Companies should disclose how they identify risk across their value chain instead of the mapping of the value chain which is, as Axel said, we agree that it will be overburdening when it comes to bureaucracy, but they have the responsibility at the same time to identify those risks. Maybe that could be a good way forward for EPP and for the others.
Maybe you can repeat what you proposed. Yes, so instead of talking about or asking companies to do a mapping of their value change, we suggest to eliminate that and to say that companies should disclose how they identify risk across their value chain. I don't see any due diligence without the mapping of your whole value chain, of where your products are produced and where you source everything you need to produce whatever you produce.
So I think we should make it clear that this is needed. The question is whether you make it public or not. If you as a company identify risk across their value chain, what do you think most of the companies are going to do? Well, if they have...
an obligation to publish it if they fail to do so. They don't have to do mapping? Well, if they don't do the mapping then they're failing their due diligence.
Then they have to identify the risk across their value chain. Which is what they're actually trying to do to prevent that something happens. Well, if they don't do the mapping then they would fail their obligation of due diligence.
So they just have to say, I'm doing a mapping, but I'm not going to tell you what is my mapping, but I'm doing it. So then you disclose your risk. Yeah, and you disclose your risk, you say that you do a mapping.
An auditor will check that you've done your mapping. If we say you should disclose, then there's no disclosure. If we scrap that whole thing, there's no disclosure. The last move that we could do is to add a reference so that it kind of protects you in your groups. We add a reference to the secret trade directive to ensure that it doesn't sell any sensitive information.
Like using one of your arguments into your... your direction if it was to find something central. But again, this is obviously not my favorite option.
I'm a little bit concerned that we are adding point for point to give us a reason to vote against everything. Why are you exaggerating everything? Again and again to all these issues. I'm really not important for the due diligence process.
Why not leaving the freedom for companies, how they are doing the due diligence process after all these criterias? Now you would like to map and disclose and so on. So it's totally not necessary.
But coming back to your question, no, I'm not in favor. I wrote myself a letter, telling myself the reasons for my commitment. And I also draw a number of red lines, like, ok you're engaged in politics, but here are all the things you shouldn't do in politics. And then I happen to read my letter again in moments of doubt or in moments of fatigue to remind me why I did that in fact.
For me, my political commitment is a continuity of my associative commitment and when I would press the button and every time I press the button it is the activist that I was and that I am always who presses the button and not the one who will submit to the lobby. Your job as a member of parliament is a It's to be a kind of energy manager. You have to bring energy to the fight.
And sometimes it's hard. Because you feel tired or you don't know how to solve a problem. But you don't have to show it.
Because otherwise it's like dominoes. And others won't believe it either. I mean, I'm in negotiations for the duty of vigilance, for a re-election, and I'm going to have another baby.
I know that it's too much. I'm aware of that. But I think I'm someone who's very optimistic. And for the moment, I'm saying, OK, I've done this before.
We will manage. Okay, luckily Alexander has gotten sick today. To me it's the biggest challenge. For me, the greatest challenge in the European Parliament, apart from the battles between the left and the right, is to fight against the established order. When it becomes really concrete, everyone fights for everything.
Everyone is trying to get as much as possible, and the situation is getting more tense. Finally, very late at night, we made it to a compromise. All the main political groups signed the agreement that we had concluded. This morning, when I woke up, I said to myself, I'm not only not discovering because it was very late, because we were exhausted, because something has escaped us, that we have been mistaken or that we have forgotten something.
On the one hand, we are happy to have obtained a result, but on the other hand, we say to ourselves, hmm, it could have been better. We have found a kind of just environment with which I do not yet know if I will be able to convince my colleagues. That consensus was made between the five most important people in the room.
There's a wider world of parliament members that follow this case, and many are very active. This is not a case that goes unnoticed. So all of us, we have to go back to our groups.
So we have to go back to our groups. In the liberal group, and in particular in the conservators and the liberals, they will know a lot about their own obsessions, their own horses, and they will make a independent opinion of what we did. And to keep all the frogs in the same nest, as we say in Dutch, that will be really difficult.
The work of a European Parliamentary is a bit complicated. In the sense that if you don't live in Brussels, which is my case, I live in Finland, then you rarely spend more than three nights in the same place. So we live on small pieces. It's the disadvantage of this fantastic work, to see people travelling from one place to another all the time. But for me it's vital to be able to come home on weekends.
I was one of the founders of the Green Movement. It is true that many of the ideas that were developed 30 or 40 years ago are now really relevant. I must say that it is quite dizzying. It's annoying to think that we have lost these 30, 40 years without a solution that we should take now.
So I hope we won't continue like this. Hello Larara. So I think you are alarmed a bit by the developments in the EPP group. Yeah, it's an understatement.
Yes, yes. So we are still trying to stick to this compromise, but it's getting harder. So it's getting worse.
Yeah. Yesterday I was up... I was up until midnight counting.
Yeah. I have not, I feel so good at the moment. To me, it looks, it looks really, it looks really bad. Yeah. Something going on, what I can't really influence then.
Yeah. Yeah. And it seems that also the chair of the German CDU will...
...be now also involved and so this is where I'm getting more and more confused because we had the feedback that one or two of the biggest groups in the delegations of the EPP would have been supported these and also some smaller ones but then all of a sudden I got different signals from different persons so that we have to clarify these So I'm still trying to reach also delegations from my group still and trying also to argue what is the negative impact of these and so on. Yeah. Okay.
So let's go step by step. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Okay.
Yes. Good luck today. Yes. Thanks Larara for you too and...
Yeah. Yeah, if we have to come back to each other then we will. Good morning.
So we have a kind of a very wonderful discussion in the EPP group especially. So we are probably the most affected group where we are splitted in a way. So the discussion has been ongoing and from my point of view several delegations are very supportive to this compromise. Others are strictly against. Some of our colleagues in the EPP Group would like to go even further than what we have achieved.
So that's why we have a kind of a mixed situation. And this is... We should discuss these ones and that's why we offered this appointment this morning, just to have a kind of a, or getting a kind of a better overview.
So I'm now asking myself if we can go through the details. But please let me explain at the beginning that there has been a lot of attention given to the four main issues. So one of them is full harmonization.
The second one is the scope. I'm just very hot. Are you guys hot too?
Yes, yes, yes. In recent years I have been very much engaged in negotiations about the European Anti-Way-of-The-Way Laraw. And I did that with the largest group in the European Parliament, the Christian Democrats.
I tried for a very long time to sign a compromise with them. They have... hand signature and now at the very last moment with the vote next week the leader of their group says no, of course I am very worried about that, they are the biggest and what I am doing at this moment is calling all offices ...to approach and say to everyone, you have to vote for this law. We've done our best for three years, we did it together. You can't say no at the very last moment.
Is that interesting enough? Yes, it's a bit of a compromise. I thought so too, about taking it with you, how it works. But what you want to show is the tension.
People have to vote. Do you understand that it's respectable as progressive politicians to just get the vote? I laugh when we say opportunism, because that's exactly how the EPP works. They've been fucking opportunistic all the time and it's only gotten worse. While we still try to do the negotiations with respect and responsibility.
But this is the most frequent time this has happened. So would it be more interesting to... I said that you try to get everyone involved, so you also add water to the wine. At the very last moment, it turned out that they didn't have to... because they were going to vote against it.
Is that too technical? Can we make an example of that? And it's not better to give an example of... Imagine you're making an appointment with someone about... I don't know, that they're moving out on Sunday.
And then they call you at the last minute. That they're not coming. Something concrete.
Actually, yes. A few weeks ago, we voted for the text in the commission and we had a strong majority. But some people said to themselves, wait a minute, this text is really going to go to the hands of the people. And so it was the wake-up call of all lobbyists who found their best spokesperson. I'm going to talk to you now about Angelique Hennig-Bleur.
You probably never heard of her. Neither have I, to be honest. She is a right-wing deputy of the PPO who is, I think, the best representative of the lobbies that they can... imagined here in the European Parliament.
Gilligan-Ibla has filed a number of amendments to empty the text of its substance, its objectives and its ambition. When, alongside her European parliamentary mandate, she makes money on the fact of helping companies and law offices to protect companies from possible judicial pursuit on the duty of vigilance, obviously it was not the interests of the mandate for which she was elected that she defended, but it was the interests of the mandate. of these companies for which it was paid. Okay, let's go.
How bad is it? We've got some from ECR, 14 from ECR. We've got three from ID.
We've got, I'd say 15 from Niblo. I mean it's a mixture between separate votes and amendments. Yeah. Delage of Jouba has seven. You have Niebler amendments on scope going up to 1000. Yeah.
You've got Niebler amendments on value chain, scrapping downstream value chain. Yeah. And up to 1000, you mean up to 1000. Upwards of £1,000.
Yeah, companies above £1,000. Yeah. So at least those two are maybe like really heart of the reactor. On those Niebler ones, I think, you know, part of EPP part of some few renew.
And I think on the Lara Bajova ones, some few renew and tempting to EPP. So yeah, yeah, exactly. The tempting to EPP part is important. Well, yeah, but also I would like their voting list is, you know, respects the deal and that. Yeah.
Then you have another Blabajoba amendment which is the following one which excludes SMEs from, well, European SMEs it says that when you are a big company within the scope and you're doing due diligence you're not doing due diligence on the SMEs you're working with So basically she's like I am the voice of SMEs and since you've done what I wanted on SMEs I'm gonna politically just put in a bullshit point on SMEs This one makes no logical sense because this means that anyone wanting to import anything in the EU can import it through an SME and doesn't have to do due diligence on it. That means you create a shelter. That's a giant loophole she's creating.
Yeah, so what we saw yesterday... Basically... It means that if you want to do business with a factory in Bangladesh, you can have an SME do the importing, and then your relation with that European SME, you don't need to look into it.
just means that you're creating like um yeah then you have a nibbler one which is the last one it's really incredible and all this time she has never reached out to me she has never asked me for a coffee she has never sent me any position or whatever. It's not the interest in actually amending the legislation. No, no, no.
If you want to have a constructive discussion about the position but that's not the objective of this. Yeah, yeah. So... No, the objective is also clearly political, right?
Look at me, look at me fighting for German companies. It's a political signal and it's also to cause chaos. Yeah. It's clearly intended to cause chaos of the vote.
I just came in. It's 5 o'clock. hearing yeah and I I'm one of the first speakers so you guys what might even want to consider staying here it's a little bit rude so I'll be available again at 5 in 30 minutes fine let's do 5 yeah yeah If you're as an expert, you can be frustrated and say these guys are not at the top of their game. When you're there and you want to make a difference and you see things going wrong, it's really frustrating.
It's very, very frustrating. Even if we wanted to be enough assholes to say It's far enough to say we're fine here, but it's okay here. It has consequences for us too, for our democracy.
That is what concerns us. Hi! Yes, hey, everything alright?
Yes, uh, pretty much, as far as we... Uh, you could say that, yes. So you mean that if the deal does make it, but then completely weakened?
Yes. Then we are just in a bad situation. In principle... The S&D is now fully on board. The IPB is completely split and it's starting to look like it.
Group discussion was just started, so we haven't had the last update yet. There are a number of delegations that we can recruit in our camp. The Portuguese were still in doubt.
The Spaniards were also divided. We still have to have the final word. That is why we are a bit of a......that the worst scenario is still possible. One more thing, for example someone like Sonneborn, he just votes with you, right?
Or is that someone who... I tried to get him hooked, but that didn't work anymore. Yes, if you also have an independent member, it's always convenient to know here and there.
So you can hear it, we are quite scratching. Yes, yes. Yes.
I wanted to check to make sure. So perhaps you could go and see with an assistant. Just to see also where your colleagues are.
Yes, that would be great. Do you have any questions? Good night, Bito. Bito, Bito, let's see.
Yes? Mich, Mich Bloos. Yes.
Next? Macron Hausling. Yes.
Eileen Autelaar. Would he vote for it? Yes.
This is about what kind of Europe we want to live in and what we as Europeans value. It's about what kind of trade we want in the future, how we see globalization and about defining our relationship with China. It's about serious action on sustainability and climate and if we don't take a firm stand in Europe then who will? This legislation on the duty of surveillance is a legal revolution of great importance.
Attempting to weaken it or even rejecting it is contrary to our principles but also to our interests. Each of us, dear colleagues, will have to answer for his vote. It is a very political issue, also within the EPP and therefore it is not easy for us. We have reached a point where we have to say that we have to stop the bureaucratic effort for the companies in particular and especially the small and medium-sized companies.
Thank you very much. It is a balanced text that has taken hours and hours of negotiation. Because it puts in the balance the freedom and the economic competitiveness with the responsibility and the protection. Because freedom without responsibility is unfair and responsibility without freedom is unbearable.
We have reached the abyss of common sense with this project of diligence in companies. The only consequence is that European companies and workers will be poorer and less competitive. And where there are European companies today, tomorrow there will be Chinese or American companies.
The concept of due diligence, as this matter is understood, is beyond my judgment. And indirectly, but more intensely, it affects especially small and medium-sized businesses. For the 100,000 peasants totally exploited in Uganda, the families of the 6,500 workers killed on the World Cup site in Qatar, or the thousands of Uighurs exploited by the big clothing brands.
For all these victims, we have fought all the way to Zazimut so that these crimes will never be unpunished. The world is keenly watching what we decide here tomorrow. Yet, another Brussels moment could be at hand. As one of the world's largest markets, the EU can be a force for good in clearly defining the responsibilities of companies to respect human rights and protect the environment.
There are moments, colleagues and dear colleagues, there are moments when we have to listen to our conscience. So tomorrow, please, this time, listen to your conscience before voting. Thank you.
If we... If we made a law... If we made a paper tiger out of this law, then that would really suck. It would really suck for the people who make our products.
It would really suck for the environment, it would suck for the atmosphere and the climate. It would be disappointing for me, but it would suck for all the people who do this for. Who is against? Who is against? Who is abstaining?
Approved. Amendment 77. Who is for? Who is against? Approved. Amendment 79. Who is for?
Who is against? Who is abstaining? Approved.
Amendment 110 in two parts. Who is for? Who is against?
The vote is closed. Adopted. Amendment application 89. Who is for it?
Who is against? Who is against? I will let you check.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. The vote is closed.
The vote is closed. The vote is closed. Amendment 387 to the vote.
Who is for? Who is against? Who is against? I will let you check. The vote is open.
The voting is closed. Deleted. Change proposal 234. Who is for?
Who is against? Who is abstaining? Approved.
Change proposals 391 and 405. Who is for? Who is against? Sometimes...
Sometimes you can't see everything. Amendment 384. Who is for? Who is against?
Who is abstaining? Denied. I like to please you. I open the examination.
The voting is open. The voting is closed. rejected.
Oh, ho, The voting is closed. The voting is closed. Sports.
Back to the reporter, Larara Volters. Yes, yes. Good enough.
Yes, good enough. Everything except one piece. Yes, but it will come back. Well done. Thank you.
Oh, you have to do it again. Hey, well done, Jochi. Well done. Thank you. Oh, well.
Are you still whole? Yes, I'm still whole. As expected, the progressive groups voted in favor of the law.
But without the 88% of the members of Renew, the Liberal Democrats of Parliament, and about a third of the Christian Democrats of the PPP, who voted in favor of the law, it would not have been adopted. After, be careful, a text is long. Negotiations in the European Parliament, you have a first step where we have already let go of feathers.
Here in this negotiation in Parliament, we will then have to go to the Commission, to the Council, of which we already know the positions, and of which we know that we will probably lose other feathers. And that... We must not forget that we are not here to have a compromise at all costs.
To have a compromise, you just have this expression in the European Parliament for the spirit of compromise. I don't care about the spirit of compromise. What interests me is whether we have a text that works.
And that's what we'll have to keep in mind. It's like a compass at the time of negotiations, because I already know the strategies of the Commission and the Council to get us to give in. I think it's quite normal that this kind of demanding legislation takes time.
It's a long fight, but an exciting fight. It's been a very good experience and I hope we'll make it to the end. We voted in the parliament, we negotiated with the states to make the final law. We negotiated maybe 5 times for hours and hours, but we got there and we thought it was good.
We thought that was it. We thought this was the end of the situation and we were happy with it and that would be the law. And then, it was far from the end. Everything that was supposed to be a formality after us, that everyone would put their signature on this law, turned out to be a whole new chapter. So, European companies have the right to exploit children.
They have the right to destroy forests. And most of all, European companies have the right not to ask any questions or right any wrongs. To be very clear, this is not what I think. This is what Emmanuel Manon, Giorgia Meloni and Christian Lindner have fought for together over the past weeks.
And if I sound angry now, it's because I am. We had a deal. But business lobbies would not give up and here we are, these leaders have now become convinced that accountability is a burden and human rights are a nice to have.
For them, fair competition is speaking big words about European norms and values. and then encouraging a cutthroat race to the bottom. The European way of life, while apparently that's the European right to wealth at the expense of others.
The cynicism of today's developments. The shamelessness. outrageous injustice of big business lobbies who tell their political leaders what to do instead of the other way around.
And as always the victims of corporate wrongdoing are ignored. Time is running out. I urge member states to stop their political games and improve and approve the due diligence law.
Thank you. There's so much anger in me and in Heidi and in my own relationship that anger also serves a purpose, right? We have to use this anger to go and tell this story.
I still don't know if this is going to end well or if not. If it ends well, then great. But if it doesn't work, then it doesn't matter.
Then, after the next five years, we have to keep fighting and to keep trying again in the next five years. And if it doesn't work in the next five years and the five years after that, we owe it to the people that we do this for. And we owe it to the nature that keeps on being destroyed.
If you want to change the world for the better, it needs to go through Europe. Is China going to do that? Is Russia going to do that?
Are we going to get better workers'rights? Are we going to get better protection of nature like China? No, we're not.
That's not what we're here for. We're here to show that.