Latest news with #CSDDD
Forbes
15 hours ago
- Business
- Forbes
Simplification Of Sustainability Regulation Gets Complicated
For those trying to keep score on the current state of corporate sustainability regulation in Europe, do not be surprised if the game goes into overtime. In the span of the past few weeks, French President Emmanual Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz both called for an outright elimination of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), while Denmark's Minister of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs, Morten Bødskov, issued a call to strengthen the directive. Soon after, representatives from France and Germany walked-back Macron's and Merz's comments, with the German state secretary, Stefan Kornelius, suggesting instead that they wish to 'de-bureacratize' and 'streamline' the regulation. Simplification breeds complexity The CSDDD, which was first introduced by the European Commission in 2022, entered into force in 2024 and has since been put on hold as part of the Omnibus Simplification Package in 2025, established obligations for companies to identify, assess, prevent, mitigate, address and remedy actual and potential impacts on people and planet in their upstream supply chain and downstream activities. In short, it meant big companies would need to become more diligent than ever on scrutinizing their vendor and supplier relationships to make sure they were not running afoul of environmental or human rights issues in any of their operations. In their arguments to repeal the directive, Macron and Merz have suggested that requiring companies in the European Union (EU) to provide this level of disclosure would put these European companies at a disadvantage versus their counterparts in countries like the United States and China. Speaking at the 'Choose France' International Business Summit, Macron explained that shelving the CSDDD was critical for Europe to 'synchronize with the U.S. and the rest of the world.' This sentiment also seems to be at the core of the discussions taking place in the EU parliament over the scope of the Omnibus Simplification Package. The bloc's Legal Affairs Committee recently submitted a draft report outlining their proposals with a heavy emphasis on creating a favorable business environment for EU businesses. So, while the simplification juggernaut will undoubtedly continue throughout the summer, where does that leave those companies craving clarity so they can get on with business? Does this mean that Europe is scaling back on sustainability reporting? On the surface, it may sound like one of the big compliance challenges that was set to come into play for many European companies may soon go away and make life easier. But that's not the case. In fact, the exacerbation of this regulatory uncertainty will have the effect of making things even more complicated for businesses operating in Europe. Say what you will about sweeping regulatory directives, but one advantage they do offer is some level of consistency. With the CSDDD, companies were facing some significant challenges getting their up-stream and down-stream supply chains into alignment, but on the positive side, they were doing it from a position of following a standard set of benchmarks for evaluating sustainability risk and a standard and comparable means of reporting that information to regulators, investors and other stakeholders. Now, with the future of the CSDDD in question, these same businesses face a piecemeal approach that will have them chasing down the details of different environmental and human rights regulations in each of the jurisdictions in which they operate. For example, the Norwegian Transparency Act, the Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act, the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act, the New York Fashion and Sustainability and Social Accountability Act and many others, are just a handful of examples of local, jurisdiction-specific supply chain regulations that contain many of the same provisions that are included in the CSDDD just focused on a more localized and sector based scale. While these may lack the EU-wide footprint that comes along with the CSDDD, they are just as relevant for most large businesses operating in Europe. Meanwhile, in the background, the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation's International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) has been quietly moving forward, gaining momentum as the de facto standard for corporate climate risk reporting by linking climate disclosures to financial reporting. In April 2024, the IFRS announced that its next areas of research would be biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services and human capital. Could this be interpreted that human capital, including human rights reporting requirements, might be coming soon to a financial statement near you? For businesses caught in the middle of this increasingly politicized time of corporate sustainability uncertainty, it is important not to be distracted by the grandstanding, lobbying and delays that have accompanied some of the biggest and most visible pieces of legislation. Instead of focusing on the supply chain due diligence reporting requirements which may be coming, business leaders need to understand where they are already in place, what they require of them and whether or not their businesses are compliant. The challenge right now is to synchronize and systematize data collection and reporting such that meeting the current assortment of local, national and international requirements does not create an undue strain on the core business or leave that business open to risk of non-compliance. It is also important to recognize that multiple stakeholders will be watching. Even as the CSDDD is held up interminably by lobbying and negotiations, consumers, investors and business partners will still expect good corporate citizenship when it comes to rooting out environmental and human rights abuses in corporate supply chains. Whether they are regulated globally or locally, human rights violations within supplier networks will never reflect well on parent companies. Investments made today in rooting out bad actors and questionable business practices will always pay dividends for big companies – regardless of the status of any single regulatory proposal.
Mint
6 days ago
- Business
- Mint
Trump goes to bat for big oil on climate rules in EU trade talks
Oil executives enlisted President Trump in fights against clean-car rules, drilling restraints and climate laws from New York to California. Now, they have won his support in their effort to quash Europe's flagship environment rules. American oil chieftains and their lobbyists have urged Trump and his cabinet members to use ongoing trade talks with the European Union to push for a rollback of two major climate laws in the European Green Deal. Trump officials have pressed their EU counterparts to scale back those laws in recent negotiations, according to people familiar with the matter. The administration's willingness to give priority to the interests of the oil executives—alongside those of several other industries—in a dispute with a vital trading partner shows how influential they have become in Trump's second term. Oil donors sent millions of dollars to Trump's third presidential campaign last year, and the administration in turn has tried to shore up demand for their products and rescinded U.S. environmental rules. Trump last month threatened to impose 50% tariffs on most goods from the EU unless they reach a trade deal by July 9. Many fossil-fuel producers quietly oppose Trump's plans to place tariffs on countries that buy their fuels. But they have pounced on the U.S. trade dispute with the EU, which for years has tried to transition the bloc's economy away from fossil fuels and curb emissions that contribute to climate change. One of the EU laws that U.S. companies are railing against is called the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, or CSDDD, which the EU adopted last year. It aims to push companies with more than 450 million euros, equivalent to about $522 million, in revenue across the bloc to pinpoint and curb human-rights violations and the climate impact of their operations and global supply chains. International oil producers and other companies are balking now at its requirement to report the greenhouse-gas emissions of thousands of suppliers around the world. The law directs them to cut their emissions to levels they say are impossibly low with today's technology. They also argue that penalties for failing to comply—up to 5% of a company's net annual turnover, or revenue after deducting rebates and some taxes—are too hefty. Exxon Mobil Chief Executive Darren Woods has become prominent among oil executives who oppose the legislation. His company already cut investments in Europe by some 70% in recent years following increases in taxes and other regulations. It has sold or shut down 11 chemical and refining facilities and sold eight businesses in its upstream unit across the bloc. During a January meeting at Mar-a-Lago, Woods explained to Trump why he believed CSDDD would bog down American companies in Europe. Woods and other executives raised the issue again in March at a meeting with Trump at the White House. And at a forum in Brussels this month, Woods warned that the implementation of CSDDD could accelerate the industry's exodus from Europe. 'This is probably one of the most irresponsible pieces of legislation I've seen come across in any country," Woods said in a recent Fox News interview. 'The business I do in Texas or Australia or China all have to basically comply with EU regulations." In subsequent conversations with the White House, the Treasury Department, the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, senior Trump officials indicated to oil executives that they plan to include the issue in trade talks with the EU. Trump's negotiators haven't fully developed all of their negotiating points yet, but have had preliminary discussions about CSDDD, according to people familiar with the matter. A White House official declined to comment on the specifics of ongoing negotiations but said Trump's trade and economics team is focused on 'unfair regulatory burdens placed on American companies and exports by our trading partners." Other oil chieftains running companies with global operations have voiced their opposition to the EU's supply-chain law. Qatar Energy Minister Saad Sherida al-Kaabi has said his country isn't going to supply Europe with natural gas if its global revenue is subject to fines by the EU. In March, Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty of Tennessee introduced a bill that would allow U.S. companies to not comply with the law. Policymakers in France and Germany have also called for scrapping the legislation. The EU made changes to the law in April as part of a broader initiative to simplify its rules and make the bloc more competitive, leading to some delays in its implementation. But oil executives said European lawmakers haven't gone far enough yet. Other changes are currently in limbo. The other EU climate standards that U.S. oil companies are asking Trump to target are methane regulations that would require companies shipping liquefied natural gas and other fuels to Europe to begin measuring and reporting methane intensity in 2028. By 2030, the EU plans to require companies to cap the methane intensity of fuel imported to Europe. When the EU approved the methane rules last year, officials said it would allow the bloc to tackle the second-highest contributor to climate change and air pollution after carbon dioxide. Oil executives have criticized the EU's methane regulations in part because they would require American frackers to prove which natural-gas facilities produced which molecules of methane. The path from the wellhead to LNG facilities in the U.S. is far too complex for that, they say. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that U.S. trade officials circulated a draft text indicating that U.S. energy exports to Europe could be exempt from EU methane rules as part of a trade deal with the bloc. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who leads the EU's executive body, appeared to push back on that idea during a Monday press conference. Asked if the bloc might agree to a trade deal with the U.S. that includes changes to existing rules, she said the sovereignty of the EU's decision-making process is 'absolutely untouchable." Write to Collin Eaton at
Miami Herald
24-06-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
EU endorses proposal for environmental deregulation
June 24 (UPI) -- The European Union is set to amend its current ethical supply chain rules after its ambassadors endorsed a simplification bill from the Council of the EU. "Today we delivered on our promise to simplify EU laws," said EU Minister of Poland Adam Szlapka in a press release Monday. "We are taking a decisive step towards our common goal to create a more favorable business environment to help our companies grow, innovate, and create quality jobs." The bill would impact current environmental laws with the intention of shrinking the regulatory pressures on businesses in order to juice up the EU's economy. Two such green rules are the EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. These currently insist that all the companies that do business in the EU and have at least 1,000 employees report their environmental effects. The bill would increase the employee threshold that forces a company to comply up to 5,000 employees. Currently, the CSRD and CSDDD also require companies that make at least approximately $522 million in net turnover to monitor their supply chains for environmental and human rights violations. The bill would raise that starting bar to about $1.7 billion. The release said the regulations were being loosened based on the concept that larger companies "are best equipped to absorb the costs and burdens of due diligence processes." The bill would also limit the obligation required for companies to adopt a transition plan to deal with climate change. It would give the EU Council authority to advise companies on how to create and execute such plans. The Council could then give companies up to two years to implement those plans in order to "further reduce burdens and provide companies with sufficient time for adequate preparations." If adopted, less than 1,000 companies would be affected by the CSRD, down from the nearly 50,000 companies that currently must comply. However, should Omnibus pass, there could be legal challenges. The nonprofit ClientEarth Europe environmental organization posted to X Tuesday that "The Omnibus is fueling legal uncertainty and might breach the law too." "A new legal analysis warns of the risk of future legal challenges if the Omnibus is passed into law," the post continued. "The agreement reached by the EU Council last night heightens these risks by further undermining the [CSDDD]. Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
UPI
24-06-2025
- Business
- UPI
EU endorses proposal for environmental deregulation
The European Union endorsed plans to scale back its current ethical supply chain rules. File Photo by Patrick Seeger/EPA-EFE June 24 (UPI) -- The European Union is set to amend its current ethical supply chain rules after its ambassadors endorsed a simplification bill from the Council of the EU. "Today we delivered on our promise to simplify EU laws," said EU Minister of Poland Adam Szlapka in a press release Monday. "We are taking a decisive step towards our common goal to create a more favorable business environment to help our companies grow, innovate, and create quality jobs." The bill would impact current environmental laws with the intention of shrinking the regulatory pressures on businesses in order to juice up the EU's economy. Two such green rules are the EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. These currently insist that all the companies that do business in the EU and have at least 1,000 employees report their environmental effects. The bill would increase the employee threshold that forces a company to comply up to 5,000 employees. Currently, the CSRD and CSDDD also require companies that make at least approximately $522 million in net turnover to monitor their supply chains for environmental and human rights violations. The bill would raise that starting bar to about $1.7 billion. The release said the regulations were being loosened based on the concept that larger companies "are best equipped to absorb the costs and burdens of due diligence processes." The bill would also limit the obligation required for companies to adopt a transition plan to deal with climate change. It would give the EU Council authority to advise companies on how to create and execute such plans. The Council could then give companies up to two years to implement those plans in order to "further reduce burdens and provide companies with sufficient time for adequate preparations." If adopted, less than 1,000 companies would be affected by the CSRD, down from the nearly 50,000 companies that currently must comply. However, should Omnibus pass, there could be legal challenges. The nonprofit ClientEarth Europe environmental organization posted to X Tuesday that "The Omnibus is fueling legal uncertainty and might breach the law too." "A new legal analysis warns of the risk of future legal challenges if the Omnibus is passed into law," the post continued. "The agreement reached by the EU Council last night heightens these risks by further undermining the [CSDDD].
Fashion United
16-06-2025
- Business
- Fashion United
Dutch political party says European sustainability rules threaten competitiveness
The Dutch political party, VVD, has sent a strong message to Brussels. On June 12, members of parliament Thom van Campen and Claire Martens-America submitted a motion to the House of Representatives stating that two European directives concerning sustainability hinder European businesses from competing with businesses outside the EU, such as those in China and the US. The directives in question are the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). The motion urged the Dutch government to advocate for the withdrawal of these directives. The Dutch newspaper Het Financieele Dagblad (FD) was the first to report on this. The CSRD requires large companies to report extensively on the sustainability of their business operations. The CSDDD (also known as the 'anti-blind eye law' or 'supply chain responsibility and liability') holds companies accountable for abuses in their global supply chains. Both directives aim to promote corporate social responsibility, but according to the motion's authors, "these rules threaten European competitiveness and put unnecessary pressure on businesses". The FD noted that the motion represents a significant shift in the VVD's stance, as the party previously supported European sustainability directives. Critics, including civil society organisations, worry that such a position allows companies to ignore issues like child labour, pollution, and poor working conditions in their production chains. Netherlands joins France and Germany The Netherlands follows other EU member states that have opposed the legislation, including Germany and France. Last month, French president Emmanuel Macron joined German CDU party leader Friedrich Merz in calling on the European Union to abolish a directive on corporate sustainability. Whether the motion will garner enough support in the House of Representatives to influence government policy towards Brussels remains to be seen. The vote is scheduled for Tuesday, June 17. The discussion regarding the balance between corporate social responsibility and economic competitiveness is once again high on the political agenda. This article was translated to English using an AI tool. FashionUnited uses AI language tools to speed up translating (news) articles and proofread the translations to improve the end result. This saves our human journalists time they can spend doing research and writing original articles. Articles translated with the help of AI are checked and edited by a human desk editor prior to going online. If you have questions or comments about this process email us at info@
