Related items

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 Omnibus I political agreement announced yesterday broadly eases the sustainability compliance and due diligence burden for businesses under the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), giving much-needed certainty to businesses. It is a significant achievement for the EU’s simplification agenda and ongoing efforts to reduce the regulatory burden. Specifically, the flexibility introduced in terms of the risk-based approach and how companies need to define adverse impacts will alleviate most of the excessive burden that existed under the original CSDDD. The revised transposition timeline of CSDDD to 2029 will also give all parties the necessary time to prepare for implementation.  

However, it appears that EU policymakers did not yet sufficiently tackle how these rules apply to the global activities of companies and groups – for example, by limiting the scope of the CSDDD to only those products and services with a logical link to the EU. This is a missed opportunity with far-reaching consequences that keeps legal uncertainty in place for global firms and their supply chains.  This oversight on extraterritorial impact will make the CSDDD more difficult for policymakers to implement and monitor and risks creating confusing overlap with other jurisdictions’ rules. 

The EU must use the next steps in the policy-making process – including implementing measures, guidance and future reviews – to fix outstanding challenges in both the CSDDD and the CSRD. In particular, clearer rules on when and how EU legislation impacts global business activities would give companies the predictability they need to invest and support sustainability investments.