Einde inhoudsopgave
Corporate Social Responsibility (IVOR nr. 77) 2010/4.4.5
4.4.5 Proposed amendment referring to OECD MNE Guidelines
Mr. T.E. Lambooy, datum 17-11-2010
- Datum
17-11-2010
- Auteur
Mr. T.E. Lambooy
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS363382:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Ondernemingsrecht (V)
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
Kamerstukken II 2003/04, 29 737, No. 11 (Amendement Douma).
See: www.oecd.org, visited on 1 July 2010. See also D. Leipziger, The Corporate Responsibility Code Book (Greenleaf Publishing Limited: Sheffield, 2003), pp. 52-67.
Article 2:391(5) DCC and the Decree of 27 December 2004 appointing the Tabaksblat Code, Staatsblad, 2004, 747. See also Directive 2006/46/EC, Article 1, sub 7, on the insertion ofa new Article 46a in the Fourth Directive. Furthermore, compare H. Beckman, Jaarrekening en Verantwoording (Kluwer: Deventer 2007), oratie [introductory lecture], Groningen University, p. 29.
Legislative history: Handelingen II2004/05, nb. 47, pp. 3034 and 3035 and Handelingen II 2004/05, nb. 49, p. 3187.
The Labour Party had proposed an amendment to the act implementing article 1.14 of the Modernisation Directive in the DCC.1 They put forward a new clause requiring Dutch companies to also disclose in their annual report whether they act in compliance with the OECD MNE Guidelines on CSR,2 and if not, to explain why not. They basically wanted to introduce the same formula, "comply or explain", as many European countries have chosen in respect of companies' compliance with corporate governance codes of conduct. Dutch law also requires that listed companies disclose in their annual report whether they comply with the Dutch corporate governance code ofconduct, the Tabaksblat Code and if not, why not.3 The Minister responsible for the implementation act made a show by arguing that the OECD MNE Guidelines cover a completely different subject and that the Guidelines should not infringe upon the territory of financial reporting. The Minister opined that this act only contained technical changes and that the proposed amendment needs to be discussed extensively in Parliament because it would mean a material change to existing laws. Not long before the adoption of the implementation act the amendment was withdrawn, most probably as a result of a political trade-off.4