With the first Working Group meeting on the draft European Union Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD or the Directive) to take place tomorrow, 7 September 2023, I take this opportunity to address you on the draft text of the Directive, within the scope of my mandate...

1. I welcome the European Union’s initiative to increase corporate due diligence obligations in relation to adverse human rights and environmental impacts...
2. I welcome the express inclusion of environmental defenders in the Parliament’s Report and the Council’s General Approach... Of the three draft texts, the Council’s General Approach is the only draft that specifically includes environmental defenders in the definition of “stakeholders” in article 3(n) of the Directive. This is absolutely critical as a large number of provisions across the Directive only grant rights to “stakeholders” as defined in article 3(n). Environmental defenders are at the forefront of environmental protection, including in relation to corporate action... Accordingly, the failure of both the Commission’s proposal and the Parliament’s Report to expressly include environmental defenders in the definition of “stakeholders” is a significant omission. I have serious concerns more generally about the approach taken in the Parliament’s Report in relation to the category of “affected stakeholders” under article 3(n). Not only does the Parliament fail to include environmental defenders in its definition of “affected stakeholders”, it also introduces a set of requirements before any individual can qualify as an “affected stakeholder” (including the need to show rights or “legitimate” interests that are “affected” or “could be affected”). Besides creating unacceptable hurdles for victims of corporate misconduct, such language also creates uncertainty and a risk of abuse, as “legitimacy” is an inherently vague concept... I strongly welcome the Parliament’s amendment to expressly add to the Annex, Part II, of the Directive both the Aarhus Convention as a whole, and in particular articles 4, 6 and 9, as well as, separately, article 3(8) of the Convention, which is the basis of my mandate as Special Rapporteur on environmental defenders...
3. I welcome the express provisions on meaningful stakeholder engagement in the Parliament’s Report... However, since the Parliament has failed to include environmental defenders in its definition of “affected stakeholders”, environmental defenders are not considered primary stakeholders to be involved in meaningful engagement during the due diligence process...
4. I welcome the proposed broadening of the substantive scope of the Directive in the Parliament’s Report and Council’s General Approach...
5. I recommend to clarify the standing of environmental defenders and civil society organizations in complaints procedures... it should be clear that both environmental defenders and civil society organizations acting either on behalf of affected individuals, groups or communities or acting in the public interest have the same standing as affected individuals to bring complaints...
6. I welcome the robust multi-tiered complaints procedure and broad range of remedial measures... At the same time, I express concern about existing hurdles for affected stakeholders to effectively trigger such oversight....
7. I recommend to broaden and clarify the scope of the Annex...
8. I call for transposition periods to be kept as short as possible...