European Network of NHRIs raises concerns over current Omnibus I proposals & makes recommendations to policymakers for trilogue negotiations
"ENNHRI Statement on the Omnibus I Proposal to inform Trilogue Negotiations", November 2025
ENNHRI, through its Business and Human Rights Working Group, has been active throughout the CSDDD negotiation process (through public statements in March 2022, in April 2023, in October 2023, and in June 2024), advocating for strong human rights protection and alignment with authoritative international business and human rights standards, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (OECD Guidelines). At the national level, ENNHRI’s members engage actively with their national governments and their Members of the European Parliament, as well as participate in formal consultation processes... To inform the coming trilogue negotiations, ENNHRI makes the following recommendations:
- Align with international standards and good practice: ENNHRI recommends that the European co-legislators make use of the trilogue negotiations to adopt an approach to due diligence that is aligned with existing international instruments and good practices by economic actors.
- Personal scope: ENNHRI recommends that the personal scope of the CSDDD and CSRD should be as broad as possible to encourage all companies to realise their responsibility to respect human rights.
- Risk-based approach to due diligence: ENNHRI recommends that the approach in the CSDDD should align as closely as possible with the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines to ensure that companies implement a genuine risk-based approach as outlined in those standards. This is the most efficient way for companies to effectively identify and address impacts on people and the environment, while avoiding unnecessary administrative burdens that stem from fragmentation and duplication of processes...
- The “SME shield” and “value chain cap”: ENNHRI recommends that the CSDDD should take a risk-based approach to due diligence, which necessarily implies access to relevant data, including the ability to request information from business partners. ENNHRI urges the co-legislators to adopt a pragmatic approach that allows for engagement with business partners, so companies can undertake risk-based due diligence in line with the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines.
- Stakeholder engagement: ENNHRI recommends that stakeholder engagement should remain central to the due diligence process in the CSDDD and that it should maintain a broad definition of stakeholders, which includes NHRIs.
- Civil liability: ENNHRI recommends that the original civil liability provision in the CSDDD be upheld to ensure coherent conditions of civil liability across the EU, reinstate the mandatory overriding application provision and ensure that the access to justice elements are capable of providing access to effective remedy for rightsholders.
- Climate transition plans: ENNHRI recommends that the obligation to adopt and implement climate transition plans is preserved in the CSDDD.
- European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and sector standards: ENNHRI recommends that the ESRS be carried out in a way which achieves simplification without losing the overall integrity of the standards, including as it relates to social sustainability and human rights. ENNHRI recommends that the requirement to adopt sector specific standards or guidance be retained in the CSRD...
ENNHRI notes that the Commission’s Omnibus proposal and the negotiating positions of the Council and Parliament deviate in a number of important ways from the core international business and human rights frameworks, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the OECD Guidelines on Responsible Business Conduct for Multinational Enterprises (OECD Guidelines), as well as from emerging good practices of European businesses in developing and implementing environmental and human rights due diligence.
These departures from existing instruments risk creating a fragmented legal landscape, resulting in legal uncertainty for businesses and a missed opportunity to fill the gaps between existing instruments in a meaningful way. This could jeopardise the instrument’s ability to meaningfully address business-related human rights abuses and environmental damage in global value chains...