Last week, the European Parliament adopted its negotiating position[1] on the Omnibus I proposal by the Commission on “simplifying” the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).
The Parliament’s position included amendments supported by far-right groups and was accepted with 382 votes in favor, 249 against and 13 abstentions.
With the adoption of the Parliament’s position, the trilogue negotiations can begin. Negotiations are expected to conclude in early December and will now focus on the points where differences between the institutions remain.
Looking for the initial proposal to amend the CSDDD and CSRD and the EU Council’s response to it?
For an overview of the Commission’s initial proposal, read this CORE message.
For an overview of the Council’s negotiating position, read this CORE message.
Below is a summary of what the EU Parliament proposed in its CSDDD Omnibus position and negotiating mandate:
Higher scope of application for both the CSRD and the CSDDD, meaning fewer companies will be directly subject to the regulations. In the case of the CSDDD, companies with 5,000 employees and EUR 1.5 billion turnover, echoing the EU Council’s position.
Risk-based approach to due diligence (Art. 8), meaning due diligence is not limited to direct suppliers but is based on risk, which aligns with the UN Guiding Principles. This approach differs from the Council’s position and the Commission’s proposal.
In order to “limit the trickle-down effect”[2] on SMEs, the European Parliament’s (EP) position also includes restrictions on the level of information requests companies can make to business partners. When scoping risks, companies should not seek to obtain information from their business partners but shall base their assessment on “reasonably available information”[3] to identify “where adverse impacts are most likely to occur and to be most severe”. Once this is identified, companies should conduct further assessments in these areas. In this context, companies can request information from business partners with fewer than 5,000 employees, only as a “last resort”[4], when such information “cannot be obtained by other means”, and such requests should be “targeted, reasonable and proportionate”.[5]
Removal of an EU-wide civil liability regime, aligning with both the Council’s position and the Commission proposal. As already outlined in a previous post, the lack of a consistent liability regime across the EU will mean that additional effort from legal and compliance teams will be needed in multinational companies that might become subject to varying liability schemes in different EU jurisdictions.
Full removal of the obligation to adopt and implement climate transition plans. In this regard, the EP’s position is the most far-reaching compared with the Commission’s proposal and the EU Council’s position.
Change from “shall” to “can” regarding what companies are required to do when they haven’t managed to prevent potential adverse impacts under Art. 10.[6] The list of actions in this context becomes optional rather than mandatory. It is not clear what that would entail in practice: a catalogue of options for companies from which they can choose.
Also, according to the amendments, the suspension of a business relationship must now be “temporary”[7] and stakeholder consultation shall take place prior to suspension. For instance, according to amendment on Art. 10, prior to suspending temporarily the business relationship, companies “shall assess in consultation with relevant stakeholders, whether no available alternative to that business relationship, that provides a raw material, product or service essential to the company’s production of goods or provision of services, exists and the suspension would cause substantial prejudice to the company or whether the adverse impacts from doing so can be reasonably expected to be manifestly more severe than the adverse impact that could not be prevented or adequately mitigated”.
Imposition of penalties left to Member States, with a limit set at 5% of the net worldwide turnover of the company, in contrast with the Commission’s proposal which explicitly requires states not to set a maximum limit in their national law when transposing the Directive.
CORE’s Take
Despite these discouraging EU regulatory developments, both in terms of the rushed and legally questionable process and substance, which has created confusion rather than clarity for implementing businesses and fails in several areas to align with international standards, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights and conduct due diligence is here to stay.
Long before mandatory human rights due diligence laws existed, there were companies and individuals within them who were committed to responsible business – organizations that operate with respect for people and the planet. The same is true today and it will remain true tomorrow, regardless of whether corporate sustainability laws are narrowed, simplified or scrapped altogether. The expectations and obligations around human rights due diligence extend well beyond the CSDDD and the CSRD.
Such forward-thinking businesses will continue to conduct due diligence and embed human rights and environmental considerations into their core operations and decision-making processes, not only because it is the right thing to do for any actor in our global community, but also because, in an increasingly polarized and conflict-affected world, it simply makes strong business sense for companies with global value chains.
Cecilia for the CORE team
[1] See press release from the European Parliament (13 Nov 2025), available at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20251106IPR31296/sustainability-reporting-and-due-diligence-meps-back-simplification-changes.
[2] See Recital 22 of the CSDDD
[3] According to the amendments 83 proposed: “reasonably available information” means information which can be obtained by the company from its own, or from existing or secondary sources without contacting a business partner”.
[4] See amendment to Art. 8 of the CSDDD.
[5] See amendment to Art. 8 (4). See also amendment to Recital 22.
[6] See amendments on Article 10 (6).
[7] See amendments on Art. 10 (6) c) and Art. 11 (7) 1 c).
