Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

On that, I have different information. What we have heard is that many of the companies that were on that sustainability journey and had put the work in, perhaps because they were looking to become sustainable suppliers, and those who have done the courses in the colleges are now having the rug pulled out from underneath them. For example, from talking to somebody who works directly preparing companies for sustainability, I know that person's client list halved in February. I do not know when the Department's Amárach research was done but what we have seen is that those companies that invested in sustainability are now at a competitive disadvantage because those that chose not to do so are being rewarded and effectively the Department is creating a disincentive to engage in this. There is a clear disincentive now. It is as though people were fools to try to get their sustainability in order because this is being limited.

Is it not somewhat ridiculous to have companies be told they should publish a climate plan but they do not have to implement it? Will Ireland suggest that implementing the climate plan be part of the new reform proposal, rather than removing the requirement for implementation?

The risk-based piece is creating a greater burden because it is only going to the direct suppliers now. We should bear in mind that these are the large companies in the CSDDD, those with 1,000 employees and over €400 million in turnover. Previously, the responsibility was on them to assess the full supply chain. Now, that goes onto the direct supplier. These companies are getting to put the responsibility one point down the chain and it is there that companies are having to do the work and provide the information or else NGOs, civil society and unions have to come up with the information and create cases with zero money in many cases in very difficult circumstances. When we hear about regulatory burden, we need to be clear that this is not about packaging size. This is about human rights and environmental regulation. Is it not the case that this will make it harder to track, for example, issues in relation to conflict minerals, child labour or the poisoning of rivers? Those are areas we want to see regulated and where we want to set standards, whereas now companies will be at a remove. Where a massive company is buying something from a tier 1 supplier, unless somebody can come and make the case for them, it can actively ignore the four stages down the line. Does that not create greater risk that human rights and environmental abuses will continue in the supply chain?

On the non-implementation of climate plans, why not say whether Ireland will be in favour of the implementation of climate plans when it comes to the negotiations? The witnesses spoke of the risk-based piece. Why should the largest corporations, with €400 million in annual turnover, not be required to assess this? That was the position held previously by the Minister, Deputy Calleary? The Department has met with stakeholders. Has it met with civil society in the developing world down the supply chain? Has it met with the human rights defenders we hear about, some of whom are being killed in some of the affected factories? The original directive, which was good, came into existence because there was a real problem and now we are just hearing about its simplification.

Will Mr. Forde talk about the climate piece? Is the Department in favour of companies implementing their climate plans and will Ireland say that? In relation to the risk-based approach, is a greater risk being created by removing the obligation to assess risk from the large corporations and companies? Will Ireland consider supporting a risk-based approach?