View previous stories
	Without binding EU legislation on corporate accountability, governments fail to address human rights by Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, agencies   15 Mar. 2024 (European Coalition for Corporate Justice, agencies)   Today’s decision by EU capitals to endorse the Belgian Presidency’s political deal on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) is a significant step forward in the protection of human rights and the environment from corporate harm. This political endorsement is a landmark decision in favour of regulating businesses to respect the planet and the rights of those impacted by business operations – including women, workers and indigenous communities, and to provide access to justice for victims.   Whilst today’s endorsement by the EU Council is an important step in formally adopting the directive, last-minute changes due to political manoeuvres by several Member States and business lobbies have further watered down a political agreement that had already not fully met international standards and expectations. Disappointingly, the CSDDD will now only apply to roughly 0.05% of EU companies and business activities that typically bear risks for the environment and human rights.   "Today's endorsement of the CSDDD is a significant landmark recognition toward regulating businesses to uphold human rights and environmental standards. The CSDDD will set the ground for responsible business conduct within the EU and beyond. But it is far from a resounding victory for victims and advocates: the endorsed compromise falls short of the ambition of the original trilogue agreement due to last-minute, undemocratic manoeuvres by Member States, who have once again betrayed those they should protect from corporate harm." - Nele Meyer, ECCJ Director   After last week’s deadlock among EU capitals, the Belgian Presidency finally succeeded in brokering a compromise among Member States resulting in the political endorsement of the CSDDD. This came with huge and damaging cuts to – what was meant to be the political deal agreed with the parliament last December. The text agreed today by the Council still needs approval from the European Parliament.   Under the proposal presented to the Council today, we estimate that nearly 70% of companies captured by the political deal of December 2023 would not face accountability for harm to people and the environment.   Following last-minute moves by France, companies will have to be over twice the size than originally previously agreed to fall into scope. The proposal was to reduce the personal scope by raising thresholds from 500 employees to over 1,000 on average and from EUR 150 million to EUR 300 million, eventually reaching EUR 450 million in turnover in the current text.   Even in sectors that are notoriously tainted by atrocious human rights violations – such as textile, mining and the agricultural sector-, only extremely large companies will have to address human and environmental rights abuses in their value chains. This proposed change is even more scandalous considering the European Commission’s initial proposal would have covered just 1% of all EU companies. We estimate that the changes will decrease the total number of EU companies covered by the CSDDD from roughly 16,000 to under 5,500.   http://corporatejustice.org/news/reaction-csddd-endorsement-brings-us-0-05-closer-to-corporate-justice/ http://corporatejustice.org/publications/debunking-7-myths-on-the-csddd http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/03/eu-new-european-business-human-rights-law-passes-crucial-vote/ http://www.fidh.org/en/issues/business-human-rights-environment/business-and-human-rights/eu-due-diligence-directive-member-states-reach-political-agreement http://www.clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press/csddd-suffers-horse-trading-wars-to-finally-get-eu-members-states-vote-clientearth/   28 Feb. 2024   Joint Civil Society Statement: We say YES to the CSDDD   Today’s failure of the EU Council to endorse the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) marks a deplorable setback for corporate accountability and the protection of Human Rights and the environment worldwide.   The blockage is largely attributable to big Member States: the early announced abstention from influential Germany – orchestrated by the minority German coalition partner, the FDP, and met with spiritless resistance by Chancellor Scholz – was followed by others. A last-minute attempt by France to derail negotiations by proposing a tenfold increase in company threshold last night increased the uncertainty for other states.   These political games starkly defy the resounding support for the Directive from governments, trade unions, civil society, large, medium and small businesses, and individual citizens. Without binding EU legislation on corporate accountability, national governments fail to address human rights impacts, the exploitation of workers, and impacts on Indigenous People's rights and other traditional communities and natural ecosystems linked to corporate operations.   It is a harrowing failure by EU governments to meet their obligations under international human rights law, and a green-light signal to reckless businesses that they can keep fuelling the climate and ecological crises for corporate profits.   This lack of support threatens a vital piece of EU sustainability legislation, necessary and overdue to trigger the change in business conduct. It is the result of a democratic process in the European Parliament and of extensive negotiations with Member States.   Now more than ever, the Belgian Presidency must rise to the occasion: it is time to circle back to the Member States and ensure a strong majority without haggling over the key principles of the compromise hammered out in the trilogue agreement.   Uku Lilleväli, Sustainable Finance Policy Officer at WWF European Policy Office, said:   “It’s scandalous that, in the 21st century, certain European lawmakers wish to permit companies to ignore human rights and environmental integrity, all under the guise of short-term profits. Let’s be clear: the law wouldn’t burden companies with unnecessary red tape; instead, it would secure a level playing field and help firms navigate necessary transitions in an informed and responsible manner.”   Isabella Ritter, EU Policy Officer at ShareAction, said:   “Those who blocked this legislation today have shown indifference to exploitation of workers and environmental degradation. They let internal political struggles take priority over the well-being of the planet and its people, which is unacceptable. The global community is watching, and the EU’s credibility and leadership is on the line".   Nele Meyer, Director European Coalition for Corporate Justice:   "It is utterly deplorable that EU capitals have turned their backs on the political agreement reached in December. We implore Member States to return to the negotiation table with a renewed sense of urgency. Protecting human rights and the environment is not a poker game. Failure to adopt the CSDDD would be a slap in the face to those people whose lives and livelihoods are being harmed by business operations. Power struggles and indifference must not dictate our future".   Marc-Olivier Herman, EU Policy Lead for economic justice at Oxfam:   "The very late term amendments to the CSDDD – the law that aims to step up companies’ accountability for potential labour, human rights and environmental violations across their supply chain being pursued by Italy, Germany, France, Austria and others amount to effectively blocking and reducing the scope of the legislation”.   “To use the SME argument at this stage is not credible. What is happening now is basically related to the impact on very large businesses,” he said. If any further concession was made on the CSDDD, there would be little left in the text to actually ensure responsible business in the downstream value chain".   “To think that, at this late stage, they can get away with anything, is pitiful,” Herman added commenting on national ministers’ tactical moves.   The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre – a CSO that tracks companies’ labour and environmental practices – highlighted that, among others, in-scope companies would for example be required to provide support and resources to their smaller suppliers to comply with due diligence, and would be called to guarantee fair contractual terms with them.   Mary Robinson, former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and chair of the Elders:   "The directive is not perfect and contains flaws with serious consequences. The effective exclusion of financial institutions, at the behest of vested interests in key EU member states, is a missed opportunity. Investor's due diligence plays a central role in defining their investee companies' behavior. If they continue to demand companies singularly maximize short-term returns to shareholders, most company executives will act accordingly—passing costs and risks down to vulnerable workers and communities".   http://corporatejustice.org/news/reaction-we-say-yes-to-the-csddd-joint-civil-society-statement-reacting-to-lack-of-majority-in-coreper/ http://icar.ngo/civil-society-letter-in-support-of-eu-csddd-to-european-embassies http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/blog/law-of-unintended-consequences-failure-to-adopt-the-eu-due-diligence-directive-will-drive-european-legal-fragmentation/ http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/cso-statement-coreper/ http://www.unicef.org/eu/press-releases/joint-statement-ohchr-undp-unep-unfpa-unicef-and-unops-eu-corporate-sustainability http://corporatejustice.org/news/press-release-csddd-political-deal-a-pivotal-step-but-a-missed-opportunity-to-embrace-transformative-change http://www.business-humanrights.org/en/big-issues/mandatory-due-diligence/ Visit the related web page
	How monopoly power tripled the profits of global agricultural commodity traders by SOMO, IPES Food, agencies Nigeria   Feb. 2024   Hungry for profits: How monopoly power tripled the profits of global agricultural commodity traders in the last three years. (SOMO)   In the last three years, the profits of the five biggest traders in agricultural commodities tripled compared to the years before. Together, ADM, Bunge, Cargill, COFCO and Louis Dreyfuss Company (ABCCD) hold a monopoly position on the global market for staples like grain, corn, soy and sugar. This enables them to influence pricing and costs, which resulted in their excessive profits and fuelled inflation, our report Hungry for Profits argues.   ADM, Bunge, COFCO, Cargill and Louis Dreyfuss Company together control between 70 and 90 per cent of the global trade in commercial grains. They are strongly vertically integrated, controlling a large part of food supply chains, working together closely through joint ventures and shared investments, and collecting large amounts of data on harvests, prices, and political developments in all parts of the world.   Their interconnectedness and market power are likely what allowed them to drastically increase their profit margins, leading to a tripling of their profits, boosting inflation, and worsening a global food crisis.   How the ABCCDs were able to excessively increase their margins on food commodities – generally interchangeable products traded on globalised markets – is unclear, though an emerging body of research provides explanations in the form of abuse of market power and oligopolistic price fixing.   In 2024, Viterra and Bunge announced their merger in a deal unprecedented in size in the global agricultural sector. This merger further strengthens the ABCCD’s dominant market position.   As people all over the world struggle with hunger and ever-rising costs of living, the five largest agricultural commodity traders announced their biggest profits ever. In 2022, the profits of the ABCCD tripled compared to the 2016-2020 period. Based on publicly available quarterly reports, it is very likely that 2023 will again be an extremely profitable year for companies pulling the strings in the food supply chain.   Monopoly power   In this research, the focus is on the five dominant companies in the global food supply chain. As a group, the Big Five control between 70 and 90 per cent of the global trade in commercial grains. Furthermore, they exert a high level of control on the main export markets of soy (Brazil, the United States, Paraguay and Argentina).   “This high degree of concentration, and resulting control over the world’s most important agricultural commodities, gives these firms enormous bargaining power to shape the global food landscape.” - SOMO researcher Vincent Kiezebrink   They hold their powerful position in the food supply chain due to a vast network of contracted agricultural suppliers, storage, processing (crushing), and transportation in core strategic food-producing countries or regions.   The ABCCDs supply farmers with loans, seeds, fertilizers and pesticides; they store, process and transport food commodities. Due to the companies’ involvement at most stages of the production process, companies have unique access to valuable market data.   This information puts them at a huge advantage over other parties in the food supply chain and can be used to influence and control the production stage all the way to processing.   This privileged position with regard to data seems especially advantageous when the agricultural commodity market is volatile and troubled, as in the current ongoing food crisis. In times of price spikes and volatility, insights into the future supply of relevant agricultural commodities are key.   Inflation and profiteering   The report also analyses research on inflation and profiteering by leading institutions and companies. High profits, as realised by the agricultural commodity traders in the last three years, can be partially explained by profiteering. Considering the strong and dominant market power of the agricultural commodity traders and their clear track record with regard to anti-competitive behaviour, the potential correlation with the recent extraordinary profits is not to be underestimated.   “We do not have a food crisis; we have a price crisis. The food corporations are shamelessly exploiting their monopoly power to artificially inflate prices. This greedflation must finally be put to a stop. We must break up these ruthless corporations, stop mega-mergers and tax their windfall profits.” - Martin Schirdewan, Member of the European Parliament   Curb monopoly power   The agricultural commodity trade market has become more and more concentrated. Since 1990, The EU competition regulators have assessed a total of 60 ABCCD cases of mergers and acquisitions. All but one have been approved unconditionally.   The next big planned merger is between Viterra and Bunge. The deal is unprecedented in size and will move the new company closer to the size of ADM and Cargill. The EU Commission still needs to assess this merger, which has already been approved by Bunge’s and Viterra’s shareholders.   The European Commission can stop the trend of ever-growing monopolisation. By investigating the various markets in which the ABCCD companies are active, including their horizontal and vertical integration, as well as the joint ventures and other cooperation agreements they have. The investigation should focus on the market power that can be exercised against suppliers to squeeze their profit margins.   In the short term, governments could implement a windfall profit tax in relation to large agricultural commodity traders, coupled with price gouging laws that would stop excessive price rises in times of emergency. It is a troubling reality that corporations have been allowed to triple their profits by driving up food prices while people around the world suffer from a cost-of-living crisis, and the world’s poorest are driven to hunger.   http://www.somo.nl/hungry-for-profits/ http://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/forests/the-cerrado-crisis-brazils-deforestation-frontline http://grain.org/en/article/6964-hunger-profiteers-in-latin-america http://www.ipes-food.org/pages/tippingthescales http://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe/insights/news-insights/news-detail/challenges-of-implementing-a-human-rights-approach-to-food-security-and-nutrition/en   Feb. 2024   Cost of living pressures force Nigerians to turn to rice that's normally thrown away, writes Mansur Abubakar for BBC World News.   As the rising cost of living continues to bite, many in northern Nigeria are turning to rice grains that millers normally reject after processing or sell to farmers to feed their fish.   These are referred to in the Hausa language, widely spoken in the north, as afafata, which means "battling" because they are literally a battle to cook and eat as the grains are so hard.   "A few years ago, people didn't care about this type of rice, and we usually threw it away along with the rice hulls, but times have changed," Isah Hamisu, a rice mill worker in the northern city of Kano, told the BBC.   Despite the grains being broken, dirty and tough, afafata's cheaper price has helped poorer families to be able to afford to eat.   Prices in Nigeria are increasing at their fastest rate for nearly 30 years. On top of global pressures, President Bola Tinubu's cancellation of the fuel subsidy plus the devaluation of the currency, the naira, have added to inflation.   A standard 50kg (110lb) bag of rice, which could help feed a household of between eight and 10 for about a month, now costs 77,000 naira ($53). This is an increase of more than 70% since the middle of last year and exceeds the monthly income of a majority of Nigerians.   In the face of this many are struggling to cope and in some states there have been cost-of-living protests.   Earlier this month in Niger state, central Nigeria, protesters blocked roads and held placards saying that they were being suffocated by the rising prices.   A few days later there was a similar demonstration in Kano in the north-west. In the aftermath, Governor Alhaji Abba Kabir Yusuf admitted there was starvation in his state and said a solution must be found.   The solution, for now, for some is found in afafata. Hajiya Rabi Isah, based in Kano state, told the BBC that if it were not for this type of rice her children would go hungry as she cannot afford the normal kind.   "Normal rice is 4,000 naira ($2.70) per bowl which is beyond my means, I can only afford afafata which is 2,500 naira ($1.69) now," she said. One bowl of rice from the market can feed an average family in Kano for a day. "Without afafata, feeding my family would be a major issue for me."   Market sellers have also noticed a difference. Saminu Uba, who works in Kano's Medile market, said the afafata side of his business is booming.   "Most people can no longer afford normal rice and they come for this which is cheaper even though it tastes less good," he told the BBC. One of his customers, Hashimu Dahiru, admits people are having to find ways of adapting.   "The cost of goods is alarming - in just two months the price of everything has doubled,'' he said. "Our wives spend hours removing stones and dirt from the rice before cooking and even then it ends up tasting not nice, but we have to eat to survive."   The presidency has said it is doing all it can about the situation, including the distribution of more than 100 tonnes of grains such as rice, millet and maize in the hope that it would cushion the effects of inflation and help lower the market price.   But the president's aide Bayo Onanuga upset many recently when he said that Nigeria still had one of the lowest costs of living in Africa. The increasing price of rice is not a new problem though.   President Tinubu's predecessor, Muhammadu Buhari, banned the importation of rice to encourage more Nigerian farmers to grow the crop, but local producers have been unable to meet the demand. Before then Nigerian markets were filled with rice from Thailand at an affordable price for many.   Mr Tinubu has lifted import restrictions, but now the shortage of foreign currency and the falling value of the naira has made bringing in rice more expensive.
	View more stories