Ioanna Schimizzi: The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) was adopted on 24 May. However, the CCDH felt that there were gaps to be filled at national level. What does that mean?
Noémie Sadler: This text is a step forward, and a significant step towards better protection of human rights, the environment and the climate, because we had been trying to get it adopted for years. There was a lot of opposition, especially from [certain] economic sectors. Some companies are obliged to identify or mitigate their negative impact on human rights and the environment, but in the end this concerns very few companies [Editor’s note: the text concerns European companies and parent companies with more than 1,000 employees and a worldwide turnover of more than €450m, as well as franchises in the EU with a worldwide turnover of more than €80m, if at least €22.5million were generated by royalties].
How many companies are affected in Luxembourg?
We're talking about around forty companies, but the directive only applies to very large companies. And there again, there are criteria. So we feel that the scope is far too limited, and above all the entire financial sector is excluded. In principle, financial institutions will not be required to examine the impact of investments, loans, insurance or other financial services on human rights and the environment.
In Luxembourg, the financial sector accounts for around 25% of the economy's total added value.
Yes, and there are things that could be done. If we had widened the scope a little more, it's clear that more companies would be obliged to be more vigilant with regard to fundamental rights.
Given Luxembourg's reputation as a financial centre, I don't think it will take the risk of targeting its financial institutions
If the government wished, it could go further when transposing the directive into national law?
Yes, member states can always adapt the basic text of European directives, which often result in minimal measures. Countries are always allowed to go further, but given Luxembourg's reputation as a financial centre, I don't think it will take the risk of targeting its financial institutions. It's a shame, but European directives are always compromise documents, as several European countries have to sign up to them. The basic text was more avant-garde, but it has been transformed into a less effective text.
Should we introduce more restrictive laws or regulations?
Yes, we had a very interesting interview with defenders of fundamental rights and environmental rights from Mexico, Brazil and South Africa at the beginning of May, and also with representatives of indigenous populations. When you talk to them, you can really see the impact that these multinationals have on their daily lives, on the environment in which they live. The water is polluted, their land is disappearing, they are being expropriated. They try to appeal, to fight against it, but it's no use, because they're too small. They are living the impact, it's not something theoretical, all the impact that these multinationals have on these populations around the world, and also the environmental damage.
Do you get the impression that people in Luxembourg think these problems are too far away?
Yes, I think we're not sufficiently aware of the impact this has on our lives. And if these companies have more obligations, their products become more expensive and then we see the impact on a daily basis. Fairtrade food or clothing respects fundamental rights but has an impact on the wallet because it's much more expensive. So it always depends on people's purchasing power.
You were elected chair of the CCDH in March. You were previously vice chair.
It was the next logical step. I'm interested in fundamental rights, human rights and their protection, and the position of chair gives me greater visibility and enables me to push forward the protection of human rights, as well as my own ideas. I'm well aware that the commission is an advisory body, but that there is still a degree of freedom to act in relation to the position of chair that you don't have as a member.
So you're the first female chair and the first one working full-time?
Yes, until now it's been retired chairs, but the chairmanship does require quite a lot of work, and the hours are long, so you have to manage it alongside your day job. Unfortunately, from a visibility point of view, I won't be able to be as present as Gilbert Pregno, my predecessor, because I work full time as a lawyer, but I try to do my best and I also rely more on the vice chairs, of whom there are two, and also on the lawyers and the secretariat for representation, for drafting opinions and so on.
Are there any new areas you would like to highlight?
We have three lawyers, a secretary general and two administrative assistants who are salaried employees, and we have 21 members of the commission who are volunteers, so changing the chair will not fundamentally change the commission. But I do embody a different style, I would say, a different way of thinking and acting. On the main issues, I have no different position to my predecessor. For example, with regard to the professionalisation of the position of chair, and the attachment of the CCDH to the Chamber of Deputies [Editor’s note: like the Ombudsman and the Okaju] and not to the Ministry of State as is currently the case, these are subjects that Gilbert Pregno had pushed forward, so we're going to continue along these lines.
Read the original French version of this interview