What's new

The European Commission’s forthcoming guidance on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D) should:

• allow companies to voluntarily prioritise chains of activities with a meaningful connection, which should be further defined in the guidance, to the EU or based on a global risk-based approach in cases where companies have global integrated supply chains;

• recognise that companies may face conflicting or overlapping legal requirements between EU and third-country legislation, particularly in relation to information gathering, audits, data transfers, supplier disengagement and cooperation with authorities;

• clarify how companies should document and manage circumstances in which third-country law restricts or prevents a due diligence measure;

• recognise interactions with competent local authorities, regulatory inspections, permits, licences and other official approvals as potentially relevant sources of due diligence information; and

• protect companies from liability where they have followed a reasonable, documented and good-faith process, including where another stakeholder might have prioritised risks or selected due diligence measures differently.

• If these measures are included in the guidance, they would help the CS3D deliver meaningful and effective due diligence, rather than an exhaustive mapping of every global business relationship. Flexibility, proportionality and legal certainty can help companies progressively develop credible global systems while directing resources towards the most significant risks and the areas where they have the greatest ability to achieve positive outcomes.

Learn more in our contribution and paper.

The European Commission’s Banking Competitiveness Report comes at a critical moment for Europe’s investment agenda. Closing Europe’s investment gap requires a banking sector able to mobilise capital at the scale the Savings and Investments Union demands. This is dependent on a Single Market that is not only competitive and integrated but open for all banks operating in the EU to act as facilitators of investment. The report provides a window of opportunity to anchor that openness at the centre of the competitiveness agenda.

The report correctly identifies a set of barriers holding back Europe’s banking competitiveness, both in the regulatory framework and in the way that framework is supervised. Undue complexity and divergent national implementation continue to raise the cost of financing for European households and businesses, underlining the need for an ambitious banking omnibus that simplifies rules and delivers greater consistency across the EU. At the same time, the report is right to call for a more proportionate, risk-focused supervisory culture that examines whether burdensome practices are weakening the attractiveness of Europe’s banking ecosystem. A new banking competitiveness agenda should build on both priorities: simpler, more coherent rules and supervision that enables internationally active banks to support investment.

Internationally active banks, including third-country groups with a substantial European footprint, are central to delivering this agenda. These institutions channel global capital to European companies, underpin the liquidity and depth of EU capital markets and help international investors finance opportunities in Europe. Europe remains a strategic market for these firms, and their investment demonstrates confidence in European growth, European companies and European opportunity.

The test of genuine integration is whether a banking group can serve customers across the Single Market without rebuilding its operations in each Member State. The report recognises that divergent national application of EU rules discourages banks from offering pan-European services and consequently results in costly duplication and regulatory burden across jurisdictions. A more competitive framework would enable European and international institutions to thrive in Europe, offering clients choice and a full suite of payment and banking services across the Single Market.

Coherent implementation will determine whether these reforms enhance competitiveness. Where the framework adapts international standards to EU specificities, the test should be whether the result preserves a level playing field for banks competing in global markets and remains consistent with the standards those banks apply across jurisdictions.

The Draghi report highlights how economic growth has stagnated in the EU due to structural weaknesses that risk undermining the EU’s global competitiveness. To bolster the EU’s attractiveness and competitiveness, lawmakers should pursue a coherent pro-growth tax reform agenda. A pro-growth tax reform agenda in the EU27 can be evaluated through five principles: (a) economic efficiency, including low distortion of economic decisions and low administrative and compliance costs; (b) consideration and strong discipline across the entire lifecycle of tax policy reform: initial decision making process, legal design and implementation; (c) evidence-based accountability through clear objectives, rigorous impact assessment, meaningful consultation and ex post review; (d) strengthening the Single Market rather than adding cross-border frictions; and (e) neutrality and fair competitive conditions across sectors, countries and business models.

These principles are mutually reinforcing: growth is supported not only by sound and coherent statutory design, but by the full tax system including law, administration and taxpayer interaction. AmCham EU has prepared a framework for EU lawmakers to use while designing, implementing and evaluating tax policy based upon our members’ experiences operating in every EU Member State and almost every country around the world.

The EU’s sustainable finance rules should help investors understand where their money is going and support Europe’s transition. The Commission’s proposal improves the current system, but some changes are still needed.

The new Transition category should focus on whether companies are cutting emissions, not on the sector they operate in. The 70% threshold should stay. The rules should also work with MiFID II and the EU Taxonomy.

Companies need 24 months to prepare. Firms that fall outside the new scope should stop reporting as soon as the rules enter into force.

Read the paper to learn how SFDR 2.0 can direct more capital towards Europe’s transition.