"OHCHR Commentary on the Omnibus Proposal", May 2025

The European Union (EU) Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) entered into force in July 2024... The directive has been welcomed by a wide spectrum of business enterprises, governments, investors, civil society, and other actors...

OHCHR understands why some simplification and streamlining of the EU corporate sustainability regime could be advantageous. However, any changes should not jeopardize alignment with international standards on responsible business conduct (in particular the UNGPs, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct and ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy) or create blind spots where human rights abuses could go undetected and unaddressed. Unfortunately, parts of the Omnibus Proposal raise serious concerns about whether EU law will ultimately be aligned with the letter, logic, and spirit of these standards. This could end up weakening protections for workers and communities, in Europe and beyond...

1. Identifying and assessing actual and potential adverse impacts

A. Undercutting risk-based human rights due diligence ...

[...] A strict limitation to tier 1 would have a detrimental effect on the effectiveness of due diligence since the main risks to human rights and the environment most often occur farther upstream (and downstream) in the value chain (for instance upstream at the stage of raw material sourcing or at initial manufacturing stages, or downstream at the transport stage). Such limitation would also significantly reduce the positive impacts on resilience, competitive advantages from better value chain engagement, addressing real impacts, reducing reputational risks, achieving synergies and efficiencies in the value chain through human rights and environment-friendly production processes and investments...

B. A flawed approach to simplification

Beyond departing from the UNGPs, the Omnibus Proposal approach to the identification and assessment of adverse impacts beyond tier one seemingly undercuts the stated objectives of simplification and burden reduction for business enterprises... According to the CSDDD and Omnibus Proposal, companies in scope would, consistent with international standards, need to do a mapping to identify general areas where adverse impacts are most likely to occur and to be most severe, without distinction as to where to look. However, the Omnibus Proposal introduces a complex assessment system afterwards... Such an approach would likely be more burdensome for companies that need to undertake this step, as it seems to require companies to have a more complicated process to assess a broader range of potential impacts....

C. Adverse impacts of shifting responsibility

The corporate responsibility to respect human rights is a global standard of expected conduct for all business enterprises wherever they operate. Such responsibility exists independently of the ability and/or willingness of others to fulfil their own human rights responsibilities. Yet the Omnibus Proposal effectively seeks to shift the burden of identifying and assessing certain impacts from businesses to other actors, such as civil society organizations and trade unions, who will need to present “plausible information” of impacts beyond tier one to trigger action. Such an approach risks creating a fundamentally inequitable situation in which individuals living and working in areas with well-resourced and independent trade unions and civil society organizations enjoy greater protection from business-related human rights harms than those in regions lacking such support...

2. Civil liability

If adopted, the Omnibus Proposal would “remove the specific, EU-wide liability regime as set out in Article 29(1) CSDDD as well as the requirement for Member States to allow for victims to be represented by civil society associations before courts.” OHCHR has long called for greater clarity in legal regimes regarding the principles for assessing the liability of business actors, including in relation to human rights due diligence, as well as easier access to mechanisms by those seeking remedy...

[...] Simply removing the liability regime in Article 29(1) fails to realize these benefits and could exacerbate the risk of legal fragmentation and confusion. This would heighten legal uncertainties and confusion for both companies and other interested parties in the medium to longer term... The proposed deletions of Article 29(7), regarding the overriding normative force of the CSDDD, and of Article 29(3)(d), regarding third party representation, should also be rejected, as they raise unhelpful barriers to remedy without any clear benefits.

3. Conclusions

The aim of simplification underpinning the Omnibus Proposal is understandable, and some adjustments in the CSDDD may indeed be warranted. However, OHCHR shares the concerns expressed by many stakeholders regarding the effectiveness of the proposed changes in achieving the stated aims and the alignment of such proposals with relevant international human rights standards.

OHCHR is concerned with other parts of the Omnibus Proposal, for instance as regards stakeholder engagement and the timeframe for monitoring the effectiveness of due diligence measures, but the areas explained above illustrate the serious damage the Omnibus Proposal, if adopted, could bring to the CSDDD.

To the extent that changes are made to the CSDDD, OHCHR urges EU institutions to ensure that such changes do not jeopardize its alignment with international standards on responsible business conduct, notably the UNGPs. In particular, the EU should be careful to avoid creating blind spots where human rights abuses could go undetected and unaddressed, weakening protections for those impacted by business activities, punishing early company adopters, and inadvertently increasing the complexity and burden for companies. The approach of the Omnibus Proposal would undermine the impact of this important directive and could set precedents that would damage global efforts to introduce effective mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence.