The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) officially entered into force on 24 July 2024. By now, we would have expected member states to be advancing on transposition of the Directive into national law and the European Commission to be busy developing implementation guidelines. Instead, progress has been halted by an omnibus process.
Key developments since the launch of the Omnibus proposal to amend CSDDD
On 26 February 2025, the European Commission issued the Omnibus proposal to amend the CSDDD, with the stated aim of “simplifying” corporate duties (the quotation marks are very much intentional, as this claim is highly debatable). You can find a summary of the key changes proposed by the Commission’s Omnibus process and how that would impact corporate practice in our CORE Message here.
This proposal triggered the ordinary legislative procedure at the EU level, which involves three main institutions of the EU to negotiate (known as the trilogue) and reach a final agreement on the proposed amendments to the CSDDD. But before trilogue talks can start, the two other institutions of the EU, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, must first adopt their own negotiating mandates, i.e., their positions.
The position of the Council of the EU, which represents the member states, was presented on 23 June 2025.
A summary of what the EU Council proposed in their CSDDD Omnibus position and negotiating mandate
Raising the threshold for companies under the CSDDD: The Council proposes to increase the threshold to companies with over 5,000 employees and 1.5 billion net turnover. If adopted, this would significantly narrow the original scope of the CSDDD, which set the thresholds at 1,000 employees and €450 million in turnover. Notably, this is a new proposed change — it was not part of the original Omnibus proposal by the EU Commission.
Risk-based approach to risk assessments yet focused on tier 1: The Council changes the focus from an entity-based approach to a “risk-based approach”, however it maintains the limitation of the relevant obligations to tier 1 (company’s own operations, those of its subsidiaries, and those of its direct business partners). This creates confusion as a risk-based approach consists of focusing on where the highest risks may lie and that usually entails looking beyond tier 1.
Companies would be required to look beyond their direct business relationships and conduct in-depth assessments, only in case of “objective and verifiable” information – a qualifier that may be open to interpretation.
Yet, the practice is that most businesses already have reasonably available information about severe human rights issues in their supply chains. The smart business approach to human rights due diligence remains a risk-based strategy that considers the entire value chain, prioritizing and addressing the most salient risks.
Removal of the EU-wide harmonized liability regime. The Council supports the Commission’s proposal to remove the harmonised EU liability regime from the directive. This means that member states are not required to adopt national laws establishing a civil liability regime to hold companies accountable for non-compliance with due diligence requirements.
As a result, different liability regimes may emerge across EU countries, leading to legal uncertainty, fragmentation among member states, and, ultimately, weaker access to justice for affected individuals and communities.
Postponement of the CSDDD transposition deadline. Backing the Commission’s proposal in this regard, the Council proposes delaying the transposition deadline by one year, to 26 July 2028. As we pointed out in our previous CORE Message on the Omnibus proposal, the one-year delay is particularly discouraging for sustainability and human rights professionals, who often rely on the momentum of mandatory regulations to gain buy-in from senior leadership and colleagues across their organizations.
Still, whether the CSDDD takes effect in 2027 or 2028, companies committed to responsible business conduct are already progressing—and must continue to do so.
Removal of the obligation to implement climate transition plans. In line with the Commission’s Omnibus proposal, the Council also proposes replacing the obligation for companies to implement transition with a requirement to merely publish an outline of planned and taken implementing actions. In other words, companies would no longer be required to put their climate transition plans into effect, but only to adopt a plan and disclose its intended and actual measures.
In addition, the Council proposes postponing the obligation to adopt such plans by two years and empowering supervisory authorities to advise companies regarding the design and implementation of those plans.
Access the Council’s negotiating mandate here.
What’s next in the Omnibus proposal timeline?
The Council can begin negotiations with the European Parliament, once the latter adopts its own negotiating position – likely to happen in October. That’s when the trilogue can begin.
An agreement on the final text is expected by the end of 2025 or early 2026.
At CORE, we believe that turning a blind eye to risks affecting people and the environment is not an option for businesses as influential players in our global society.
Irrespective of the outcome of the Omnibus process, corporate responsibility to respect human rights and conduct due diligence is here to stay. The expectations and obligations around human rights due diligence extend well beyond the CSDDD. For a list of laws and regulations around the world that require companies to undertake human rights due diligence, read this CORE Message.
Regardless of whether a company falls within the scope of this law or that regulation, 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 is this the right thing to do, but it also makes strong business sense.
