"Statement on the EU Commision's proposal for the CSDDD"

The EU plans to reduce red tape with an ‘omnibus procedure’ that involves harmonising sustainability laws and simplifying requirements. The focus here is on the European Supply Chain Directive (CSDDD) and the European Reporting Directive (CSRD). We take a critical view of the European Commission’s current proposals regarding the CSDDD, and fear that they will result in more red tape and less impact. [...]

These are our demands to the EU for an effective supply chain directive:

1. No postponement: Immediate implementation is crucial to create a fair and reliable competitive envi-ronment and to quickly address possible human rights violations.
2. Broader scope – beyond direct business partners: Limiting the scope to direct business partners only would lead to more bureaucracy and less impact. It doesn’t make sense to send out questionnaires to our neighbour-hood caterer when the real human rights problems lie elsewhere. That is why we are calling for a risk-based approach that prioritises one’s own activities according to se-verity, probability, and one’s own influence.
3. Binding climate change mitigation measures: Companies should be legally required to implement their climate targets in a binding manner. This is the only way to ensure meaningful progress, moving beyond discussions to concrete actions.
4. Support for SMEs: Due diligence obligations must not be shifted onto supply chain partners, especially SMEs. However, it must remain possible to conduct risk assessments on SMEs, as human rights can be violated anywhere. Larger business partners and policymakers should support SMEs in minimising risk.
5. More frequent review of due diligence processes – not just every five years: A review interval of two years allows us to respond to change and ensure the effec-tiveness of the measures. Let’s keep things fresh and responsive.
6. Alignment with the CSRD: Risk analyses and materiality criteria should be aligned with the Corporate Sustaina-bility Reporting Directive (CSRD). CSRD reporting should also be fully compliant with the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), and key terms, such as “value chain,” should be harmonized across both frameworks.
7. Freedom and duty to interpret: We believe that not every detail should be rigidly legislated, as long as the objective is clearly established. Companies should have the freedom – and duty – to determine their own best practices for protecting human rights and the environ-ment, provided they can justify their approach in a transparent and credible manner.

We urge the EU not to weaken the effectiveness of the CSDDD through misguided ‘simplifications’, and to establish legal certainty for companies as quickly as possible. This is the only way Europe will be able to meet today’s social and economic challenges, protect people and the environment, and uphold fair competition. [...]