Latest news with #CSDDD
Reuters
a day ago
- Business
- Reuters
How Europe's ambition to lead on corporate human rights ran into the sand
July 21 - Just over a year ago, the European Union approved a directive that sought to usher in a new era of human rights protection across Europe. The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) was meant to give investors more visibility on the risks throughout the value chain of investee companies and make non-compliant companies accountable to member-states and to victims of human rights or environmental harm, even in their operations outside Europe. It took five years of wrangling to agree the rules on corporate due diligence and in the end, just 5,400 companies – fewer than 1% of EU firms – and 900 international corporations that do significant business in the EU were expected to be impacted. Since November last year, however, legislators have sought to unpick it, amid heavy lobbying from industry groupings, which argued that the rules meant European companies could not compete with rivals in China and the U.S., where President Donald Trump is rolling back regulation and imposing tariffs on foreign goods. In February, the European Commission introduced the first in what would be a series of Omnibus packages, focused on sustainability and investment and billed as a recalibration of rules 'in a growth-friendly manner'. The Commission said that if implemented, its Omnibus proposals would mean total savings in annual administrative costs of 6.3 billion euros and would mobilise a further 50 billion euros of public and private sector investment in support of policy priorities. The wide-ranging proposals include giving companies an extra year, to 2028, to implement the CSDDD; limiting due diligence to direct – tier one – suppliers unless there is 'plausible information' to justify deeper investigation; and doing away with a harmonised civil liabilities regime, leaving member states to establish their own mechanisms and set their own penalties. Since the first Omnibus package was published, the European Council and the EU Parliament have both made further proposals to reduce the number of companies in scope, and their reporting requirements. The European Council, for example, wants to raise the CSDDD threshold from 1,000 employees and a turnover of 450 million euros to 5,000 employees and 1.5 billion euro turnover. One of the EU Parliament's proposals is to do away with companies' obligation to draw up climate-transition plans. As part of the Omnibus, the Commission also proposed reopening the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Standard (CSRD) under which companies would have to report on implementation of climate transition plans, and the EU Taxonomy. All three work together as a framework for investors providing meaningful information on risk. Both the European Council and EU Parliament have suggested further amendments to the scope and veracity of the CSRD. The proposals reflect wide-ranging criticism from lobby groups. The French Banking Federation had argued that significant divergences between the scope and requirements of the CSDDD and CSRD risk increasing the regulatory burden and that the CSDDD put European companies at a disadvantage compared with international competition. VCI, the trade group for the German chemicals industry, said that 'huge legal uncertainty and incalculable risk' associated with civil liability would likely lead to companies withdrawing from high-risk regions and markets. Opposition has been voiced in the U.S. too, with a bill introduced in the Senate that seeks to protect U.S. firms from the reach of the due diligence law. Pierre Garrault, senior policy adviser at the European Sustainable Investment Forum (Eurosif), says 'The Omnibus initiative now modifies potentially the core substance of these rules. But that's not what businesses and investors wanted. They wanted more guidance, more clarity and less duplication.' And he suggests that the proposed changes in the Omnibus legislation could defeat the main purpose of the CSDDD because just a few companies from a few member states would be in scope. 'That creates a lot of fragmentation in the way that companies can report on sustainability matters and establish their own processes on due diligence when the main objective was to create that EU-wide standardisation, and that single European baseline.' David Ollivier de Leth, a researcher at Netherlands-based Centre for Research on Multinationals (SOMO), shares those concerns. 'The whole point of this law is that you should look at the risks, and the risks are what should guide you, not the size of the company or (its) location.' With businesses potentially now only having to address adverse human rights impacts beyond tier one suppliers if they have 'plausible information' to act on, campaigners are concerned that the Commission's changes would mean companies simply turn a blind eye to potential harms. 'I think it is fair speculation to say (that) it might even incentivise companies not to look for that plausible information because what if I get it, then I might be liable for what I've discovered,' suggests Marion Lupin, policy officer at the European Coalition for Corporate Justice. While a big enough injustice might attract the attention of NGOs, she adds, 'you're very much outsourcing the risk-management to other stakeholders, whose job is not to survey value chains of multinationals. It's very problematic.' Another Omnibus amendment restricts due diligence further by limiting the information corporations can ask for from suppliers with fewer than 500 employees, the so-called VSME standard, a voluntary reporting standard for small- and medium-sized companies developed by the Commission's technical adviser on sustainability reporting. VSME allows companies to assert 'we don't know (about human rights risks in our supply chain), because we're not allowed to ask,' says SOMO's Ollivier de Leth. Ollivier de Leth says SOMO's study of seven major EU supermarket supply chains demonstrates just how much the tier one limitation guts the purpose of the CSDDD. It found that most firms' tier one suppliers were based in EU countries deemed to be at low risk of human rights violations. That is in contrast with the large proportion of more distant suppliers, which originate in countries with a high risk of human rights violations, such as deforestation and land rights abuses found in meat and soy chains, or child labour in cocoa supply chains. Campaigners are also concerned about the demise of harmonised civil liability, which would have ensured that the conditions under which a company can be held liable are the same in every member state. Instead, a hotch-potch of national rules potentially creates a legal minefield, argues the ECCJ's Lupin. Johannes Blankenbach, senior EU researcher at the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, agrees: 'Harmonised civil liability is very important for remedy, and also as an incentive for a true level playing field among companies of quality due diligence beyond just ticking boxes.' Investing in thorough due diligence also protects companies themselves, he adds. Before the advent of the CSDDD, only a few European countries had implemented due diligence obligations based on international standards framed by the OECD and U.N. Guiding Principles. French law, for example, requires due diligence across the full value chain but is short on detail that can leave it open to interpretation in the courts, say campaigners. Germany's legislation, meanwhile, focuses only on tier one suppliers. That limit followed extensive corporate lobbying, but Blankenbach argues that the way companies have chosen to apply Germany's legislation so far has created the very bureaucracy they sought to avoid, with 'firms performing indiscriminate compliance exercises with all their tier one suppliers, sometimes flooding them with relatively meaningless surveys'. 'It's a bitter irony to see that tier one focus replicated in the Omnibus,' he adds. In April, legal charity ClientEarth and seven other campaign groups filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman, the EU's independent watchdog, accusing the Commission of 'maladministration' for bypassing proper impact assessment and excluding broad public participation in preparing the Omnibus package. Read more They also accused the Commission of consulting industry lobbyists in closed-door meetings before publishing its proposals. In July, the EU Ombudsman wrote to the Commission asking it to justify its decision-making process, and giving it until September to respond. A Commission spokesperson told journalists that swift changes had been needed since the reporting requirements already applied to some companies. "Businesses and member states urgently needed legal certainty to comply with the sustainability framework," the spokesperson said. Some companies and investors are pushing back against the Omnibus. Over 200 have so far signed an open letter stating that 'regulatory simplification can be achieved without compromising on the substance of sustainability rules or their significant benefits for businesses across the EU'. They include EDF, Vattenfall, Ingka Group and the Inter IKEA group, as well as pensions groups, insurers and asset managers – many of whom have already begun implementing and preparing for the due diligence legislation. A spokesperson for Inter IKEA Group and Ingka Group told The Ethical Corporation that it's important the CSDDD doesn't 'turn into a compliance without impact'. 'We advocate for maintaining a risk-based approach beyond our direct suppliers and ensuring that companies can legally access the information needed to identify, prevent and mitigate adverse impacts throughout their value chains.' How much weight those arguments have will become clear this autumn when the European Parliament finalises its position and negotiations between the Commission, European Council and EU Parliament begin. Businesses and investors who are preparing for the new legislation urgently want clarity. Will it come at the expense of rights holders?
Fibre2Fashion
15-07-2025
- Business
- Fibre2Fashion
bluesign celebrates 25 years driving global textile sustainability
2025 marks a pivotal milestone for bluesign, the global authority in sustainable chemical and environmental management for the textile and fashion industry, as it celebrates 25 years of advancing cleaner, safer, and more responsible manufacturing practices across the global supply chain. Since 2000, the Swiss-founded company has led the global charge towards a more sustainable future, developing a science-based, input stream management system to eliminate harmful substances at the source of textile production. Now spanning 900+ system partners across the globe, bluesign continues to deliver measurable reduction in environmental impact at an unprecedented scale. The company sets the global benchmark for responsible production with stringent criteria for chemical use, environmental performance, and resource efficiency, and serves as a one-stop resource for navigating ESG and upcoming legislation (CSDDD, CSR, ESPR, DPP etc), helping partners stay ahead of global compliance standards while embedding verified sustainability into every stage of production. In 2025, bluesign celebrates 25 years of driving sustainable change in the textile industry. With 900+ global partners, it leads in safer chemistry, reduced environmental impact, and verified sustainability. Its science-based system ensures transparency, compliance, and continuous improvement, setting the benchmark for responsible production worldwide. Then & Now: A Mission That Endures From its inception, bluesign's mission has remained clear: remove harmful chemicals from textile production from the beginning, and hence ensure safer working conditions, reduced harm on the environment, and deliver safer products for consumers. Over 25 years, this mission has only strengthened, evolving to meet global challenges like PFAS elimination, decarbonization, and circularity, while driving continuous improvement across the industry. Measurable Impact at Scale The bluesign System enables its partners to make verified, measurable progress toward sustainability goals: Safer chemistry and materials: Over 28,000 chemical products and 70,000 textile materials carry the bluesign APPROVED status, signaling compliance with the strictest industry criteria and elimination of hazardous substances including CMRs and PFAS. Environmental Performance: Since 2019, bluesign System Partner manufacturers have collectively achieved the following improvements in environmental footprint: Global Reach: The bluesign network now includes over 900 System Partners across the world, including chemical suppliers, textile mills, manufacturers, and brands. Worker & Consumer Safety: The bluesign System ensures safe conditions for workers and non-toxic products for consumers, built on a foundation of transparency and accountability. Why It Matters: A Holistic, Verified Approach bluesign's unique value lies in its holistic system, which tracks and verifies impact at every stage—from chemical inputs to final product. The independent, science-based verification process goes beyond traditional certification to ensure ongoing compliance and continuous sustainability improvements, building trust with stakeholders and empowering the industry to move forward responsibly. Looking Ahead: The Next 25 Years As the industry faces new challenges, including circularity and legislative shifts, bluesign continues advancing solutions that protect workers, consumers, and the environment, and remains committed to innovation and global impact. As the industry faces new challenges, including due diligence, extended producer responsibility, and digital product passports, legislative shifts under the EU Green Deal, and rising expectations around circularity, bluesign remains committed to innovation and impact. 'bluesign was born out of a bold idea, that sustainability could be embedded into the DNA of product creation,' said Daniel Rüfenacht, CEO of bluesign technologies . 'Twenty-five years later, we're proud to be a beacon of trust, innovation, and responsibility, and to partner with industry leaders worldwide in building a more sustainable future together.' To commemorate its 25th anniversary, bluesign will host a series of events, expert panels, and global activations celebrating the progress of its partners and educating the industry on the future of sustainable textiles. Note: The headline, insights, and image of this press release may have been refined by the Fibre2Fashion staff; the rest of the content remains unchanged. Fibre2Fashion News Desk (HU)
Fashion Value Chain
15-07-2025
- Business
- Fashion Value Chain
bluesign® Celebrates 25 Years of Textile Innovation
Bluesign Celebrates 25 Years as a Global Leader in Sustainable Textile Innovation In 2025, bluesign® marks a major milestone—25 years at the forefront of sustainable innovation in the textile and fashion industry. Since its founding in 2000 in Switzerland, bluesign has become the global authority on chemical and environmental management, transforming how the industry approaches cleaner, safer, and more responsible production across global supply chains. From the beginning, bluesign introduced a pioneering, science-driven input stream management system that removes hazardous substances right at the source of textile production. Today, with a global network of over 900 system partners, bluesign drives real, measurable reductions in environmental impact—setting the industry's highest standards for responsible manufacturing. Its rigorous criteria for chemical safety, environmental performance, and resource efficiency serve as a one-stop solution for navigating ESG strategies and aligning with fast-evolving global regulations (including CSDDD, CSR, ESPR, and DPP). Then & Now: A Lasting Mission bluesign's mission has always been clear: eliminate harmful chemicals at the origin of textile manufacturing to ensure safer working conditions, minimize environmental damage, and deliver safer consumer products. Over 25 years, that mission has remained steadfast, while evolving to tackle today's urgent challenges like PFAS elimination, decarbonization, and circularity. 'bluesign was born out of a bold idea, that sustainability could be embedded into the DNA of product creation,' said Daniel Rüfenacht, CEO of bluesign technologies. Proven Impact at Scale The bluesign® System empowers its partners to achieve verified sustainability improvements: Safer chemistry and materials : More than 28,000 chemical products and over 70,000 textile materials now carry the bluesign APPROVED label, guaranteeing compliance with the strictest safety and environmental standards—including the exclusion of carcinogens, mutagens, reprotoxins (CMRs), and PFAS. Environmental performance : Since 2019, bluesign System Partner manufacturers have shown consistent reductions in their environmental footprints. Global network : With 900+ partners—ranging from chemical suppliers and textile mills to brands and manufacturers—bluesign's reach spans the globe. Worker and consumer safety: The system ensures safe workplace conditions and non-toxic final products, grounded in transparency and independent verification. Why It Matters: Verified Sustainability at Every Stage bluesign's strength lies in its holistic, independently verified system. From raw materials to the finished product, it tracks and measures impact, ensuring continuous improvement. This goes far beyond conventional certifications, offering a robust solution that builds trust with consumers, regulators, and stakeholders. Looking Ahead: The Next 25 Years As the textile and fashion industries navigate major changes—including circular economy demands, regulatory shifts under the EU Green Deal, and the push for digital product passports—bluesign remains committed to global impact and cutting-edge innovation. 'Twenty-five years later, we're proud to be a beacon of trust, innovation, and responsibility, and to partner with industry leaders worldwide in building a more sustainable future together,' added Rüfenacht. To honor this milestone, bluesign will host a global series of celebrations, expert panels, and activations to spotlight partner success stories and help prepare the industry for the next era of sustainable transformation.
Euractiv
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Euractiv
I don't regret backing von der Leyen, says Greens chief Eickhout
Strasbourg, FRANCE – Euractiv caught up with Bas Eickhout, a Dutch MEP who leads the Greens in the European Parliament. In his office looking out onto Strasbourg's cathedral, Eickhout defended the Greens' decision to support Ursula von der Leyen's new European Commission in 2024, and again in last week's motion of censure, pointing to green-tinged upcoming laws. But he said the EU's push to simplify its legislation is going too far under pressure from corporate lobbyists and von der Leyen's centre-right political family in the Parliament, the EPP, led by Manfred Weber. The 53-strong group he jointly leads with MEP Terry Reinkte is far smaller than it was before last year's European election. So instead of threatening to topple the Commission, Eickhout is appealing to von der Leyen to put the brakes on Weber. What follows is an edited transcript. Euractiv: It's a tough time for the Greens. The far-right Patriots are taking the lead on the 2040 climate target, and a massive simplification agenda is upending much of the European Green Deal. Do you regret backing this Commission last year? Eickhout: I don't regret it, but things need to change. I still stand by the choice because I still see a program where we also have elements where we can work on climate adaptation, industrial policy, and oceans. We still expect the Commission to deliver on that. What annoys me is that it comes so late. For example, the Circular Economy Act is planned for the end of 2026. Where is the urgency that we see on defence? Why is that not on industrial spending? That is a political choice I'm criticising. But anyone could have told you in July 2024 that the EPP would be dominant in the Parliament, where they are the largest group, and in the Commission, where they have the most commissioners. Weren't you naive to support this Commission? It's logical that there would be an EPP agenda and we are ready to adapt to shifts in the Parliament. But it's now about how this simplification agenda is being done. The first proposal on Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), to be very honest, has nothing to do with simplification. It's creating chaos for companies; they don't know what they have to do. This is stupid simplification. On CSDDD it's just killing a law, it's deregulation. So, call me naive that I trust von der Leyen when she says we do simplification, not deregulation. She underestimated a bit the beast that she has woken with the simplification, because every nasty lobby is now jumping on it. What I hear now already is that the pharmaceutical lobby is lobbying to change the urban wastewater directive, to avoid the polluter pays principle. This is exactly an example where the omnibus is stupid. Are you soft-pedalling a bit on von der Leyen, though? After all, most of your focus tends to be on Weber, not her. I don't think there's a very good relation between her and Weber, and what she is underestimating – and I can even understand that, because there are bigger issues to solve in the world – is that what Weber is doing is also hurting her. It's important that she clearly shows that she's not EPP Weber. And this is, of course, something that she's not eager to do because in her way of communicating, she always tries to stay neutral in everything. Weber's choice is, 'Do you want to work with the pro Europeans or do you keep on doing what you're doing now?' And that's just strengthening the far right, and it's strengthening chaos, and in the end, it will kill you. But I'm also warning the Commission, this mounting pressure on you will be harder and harder to push back on. Your Dutch Green Party will soon fully merge with Frans Timmermans' Socialist Party, and you are fighting the upcoming October national election together. Does that mean your MEPs will all move to the Socialists group or the Greens in the European Parliament? And would you go back to join the government if you win? What we try to do here is stay in both groups. As for me, I really like the European arena, more than the Dutch arena. It's more long-term focused. I like to play chess on a three-dimensional chessboard. If Timmermans calls, we'll have a talk. (mm)
Forbes
01-07-2025
- 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.
