The EU’s mandatory human rights due diligence legislation (CSDDD) is a landmark advance for business and human rights. However, a series of amendments suggested by the European Commission in February (the ‘Omnibus’ proposal) imperil the power of the Directive for vulnerable workers and communities around the world.

Of particular concern in the Omnibus proposal is the severe weakening of the Directive’s obligations essential for respecting migrant worker rights. If adopted, migrant workers will face continued risk of egregious labour rights violations without access to remedy or justice, from farmworkers dying by suicide after being subjected to violence by their employer, to construction workers being denied food for 36 hours for refusing to continue working without pay; to factory workers experiencing kidney failure after working in extreme heat.

These risks are all too real – and growing. In the first six months of 2025, the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre recorded 445 cases of alleged corporate abuse of migrant workers globally. This is a 37% increase compared to the number recorded in the same period last year.

We recorded cases in every region of the world across a range of industries. These are likely just the tip of the iceberg. The scope and scale of abuse shows companies are failing to conduct adequate human rights due diligence that identifies, prevents and mitigates specific risks experienced by migrants.

The CSDDD can change that – but only if it’s not watered down.

We identified 327 companies linked to allegations of abuse: 52 fall in scope of the Directive. The most common type of rights violation in cases linked to CSDDD in-scope companies was barriers to accessing remedy (44% of cases). In other words, even where harm has clearly occurred in the value chains of some of the largest companies, employers fail to fix the issue.

In one case a Filipino worker processing chip components for Apple, Nvidia and others in Taiwan alleged she was forced to resign after filing a hotline complaint; in another, almost 4000 seasonal sugar plantation workers employed by Sosucam (part of Somdia, owned by French multinational Castel Group) protested abuses in Cameroon, only to be met with violence by security forces. One worker allegedly died after being shot by security forces at the protest.

In particular, the Directive calls for companies to pay “special attention” to adverse impacts on individuals at heightened risk due to marginalisation and vulnerability, accounting for intersecting factors including race and migration status. CSDDD therefore obligates companies to create policies and practices safeguarding migrant workers.

The Omnibus proposal threatens to change that in material ways.

Firstly, it limits the scope to direct business partners.

The Omnibus proposal suggests limiting companies’ human rights due diligence efforts to the level of direct business partners (Tier 1). However, in the first six months of this year, migrants reported abuse at companies beyond Tier 1 in 41% of cases linked to CSDDD in-scope companies. By restricting due diligence obligations to direct business partners, high-risk suppliers will be excluded from scope, and migrant worker abuse can be left well-hidden, deep in supply chain blind spots.

It shifts the burden of proof onto workers and civil society. 

The Omnibus proposal requires due diligence beyond direct business partners only where there is “plausible information” of abuse. This shifts the burden of evidencing abuse onto workers and civil society organisations.

This is particularly problematic for migrants. In 35% of cases linked to CSDDD in-scope companies, workers reported facing employer threats and intimidation, in some cases effectively silencing their complaints . Intimidation was also exacerbated by the use of employer-tied visas, rendering workers dependent on their employers and putting them at risk of retaliatory dismissal and deportation for raising complaints. Migrants also faced significant barriers accessing unions, which are essential for documenting abuse.

Civil society groups, too, will struggle to identify buyers with whom to raise abuse. Clients or buyers were only named in 14% of our tracked cases, despite the fact most cases occurred on farms, factories and worksites likely in the supply chains of large multinationals.

It lowers requirements for ongoing due diligence.

The Omnibus proposal shifts monitoring due diligence effectiveness from annual assessments to once every five years. However, the risks faced by migrants fluctuate constantly due to shifting immigration policy, geopolitical tensions, and the escalating climate emergency.

In the first six months of 2025, conflict created heightened vulnerabilities for migrants in certain regions: Filipino seafarers on Greek vessels were attacked by Houthi militants in the Red Sea; Chinese construction workers were denied access to bomb shelters in Israel; and migrants from Myanmar who fled conflict for were paid below minimum wage in Thailand.

Rising temperatures worldwide and extreme weather-events also exacerbated vulnerability. We recorded 25 cases of heat exposure impacting migrants, and migrants were also on the frontline rebuilding Los Angeles in unsafe conditions after devastating wildfires in January (proposals to remove a CSDDD obligation to put climate transition plans into effect will exacerbate these risks further).

Human rights risks also changed following immigration policy shifts. Most notably, a series of executive orders by the US administration increased immigration enforcement operations, creating a climate of fear for migrants who face heightened risk of deportation.

Reducing the frequency of due diligence effectiveness monitoring will leave migrant workers to bear the brunt of escalating crises.

And finally, it restricts access to justice.

The Omnibus proposal suggests removing CSDDD’s civil liability clause, dealing a devastating blow to a key enforcement mechanism.

If implemented, migrants will have only national tort laws to rely on, despite the fact they often fail to hold companies to account. Further, by removing the civil liability provision, member states’ courts might need to apply the laws of the country where the abuse occurred.

We found most abuses linked to CSDDD in-scope companies took place outside of Europe, often in countries where migrants face barriers accessing legal representation and fair trials. Removing the civil liability clause will severely weaken access to justice for migrants.

The Directive promised to incentivise the world’s largest companies to embed human rights into their operations. The Omnibus risks derailing this promise, at the expense of some of the world’s most vulnerable workers.