Latest news with #CSDDD
Forbes
23 minutes ago
- Business
- Forbes
Europe Isolated: Qatar Threatens Natural Gas Embargo Against The EU
Qatari Energy Minister Saad al-Kaabi sent a letter to the Belgian government in May, Reuters reported, warning may stop exporting liquefied natural gas to the European Union in response to the European corporate sustainability due diligence directive, which entered into force on July 25. The CSDDD requires large companies to remedy environmental harm and human rights concerns (such as forced labor) in their supply chains or incur fines. The rules apply to both EU and non-EU companies with a yearly turnover greater than €450 million. Notably, the rules will be implemented gradually through 2029 based on company size. Qatari outrage over the directive reflects the country's reliance on fossil fuel exports and widely reported exploitation of foreign workers. In the above-mentioned letter to Belgium's government, Al-Kaabi, who is also President and CEO and Deputy Chairman of state-owned QatarEnergy, wrote that if 'further changes are not made to CSDDD, the State of Qatar and QatarEnergy will have no choice but to seriously consider alternative markets outside of the EU for our LNG and other products.' His letter questioned the European directive's climate goals, affirming that Doha has no plans to achieve net zero emissions anytime soon. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Qatar is one of the world's top LNG exporters, exported about 9.3 billion cubic feet per day of LNG through the Strait of Hormuz in 2024. With new LNG pipelines opening up in Syria, plus increasingly warm relations between Qatar and Pakistan, Qatar has other options for LNG export flows. Europeans have few equally affordable options. To meet European needs for gas without having to rely on Russia or Qatar, EU countries may look to buying more LNG from the U.S. or revisit local nuclear energy policies. LNG And The Future Of European Energy This is not the first time Qatar has threatened to cut off LNG exports to Europe over the CSDDD. 'If the case is that I lose 5% of my generated revenue by going to Europe, I will not go to Europe," Al-Kaabi reportedly said in reference to the associated penalties back in December 2024. "I'm not bluffing.' If Doha follows through on its threats, the consequences will have ripple effects for European energy security, although EU members may be able to replace the Qatari supply with imports from the U.S., Nigeria, Algeria, and Mozambique. While Qataris could likely find alternate buyers, particularly in Asia and the Middle East, their insistence on long-term contracts with restrictive resale provisions may push Asian buyers, especially the Japanese and South Koreans, to avoid Qatari LNG. The share of Qatari LNG imports in the EU's total gas portfolio has increased as Europe continues to seek alternatives to Russian LNG, spurred by Putin's second invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In the first quarter of 2024, Qatari LNG accounted for 9.1% of the EU's total imports, and in the first quarter of 2025, this number increased to 10.8%. In 2023, QatarEnergy entered into large LNG contracts with three major companies to supply gas to Europe. It agreed to supply Shell, Eni, and TotalEnergies with several million tons of LNG per year for the next 27 years, providing energy to the Netherlands, Italy, and France, respectively. Europe's reliance on foreign LNG stems from policies across several of its states prioritizing renewables to the exclusion of more reliable forms of baseload energy, like nuclear, which makes foreign sources of LNG a key component of the continent's energy mix. This, in turn, has rendered the EU increasingly vulnerable to shocks caused by international politics. Qatar's History Of Human Rights Abuses For now, at least, Qatar is publicly expressing concern only regarding the CSDDD provisions requiring businesses to implement climate transition plans. However, Qatar's response to the CSDDD was likely spurred not only by the outsized role of fossil fuels in its economy, but also by its ongoing neglect of safe labor practices and global human rights norms. When Qatar won the bid in 2010 to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup, the next decade cast a harsh light on Qatar's treatment of the migrant workers building the stadiums and infrastructure, including the country's first subway system to handle the crowds of anticipated spectators. In 2022, World Cup Chief Hassan al-Thawadi confirmed that 400-500 migrant workers died working on construction connected to the tournament. In reality, the death toll was probably much higher. Workers were also subjected to unpaid wages, forced labor, dangerously long hours, and other types of abuse. Despite promised reforms and the official abolition of the kefala system in 2016, the Global Slavery Index 2023 estimated that 6.8 people per every 1,000 of Qatar's 2021 population of 2,818,060 were living in modern slavery, hardly a boon for the Emirate closely controlled by the Al Thani clan for generations. It's especially tricky for European leaders to consider how the CSDDD penalties may relate to human rights concerns, given Qatar's complex role in global extremist movements. Qatar is the key funder of the Muslim Brotherhood, a global Islamist movement, as well as being a key sponsor of the Hamas terrorist movement in Gaza and the West Bank. To make matters even more complex, Doha also has close relations with the Taliban and played a key role in facilitating its return to power in Afghanistan. The EU is now stuck between its own policy priorities, strict regulatory framework (CSDDD as an example), and its reliance on imported gas. Besides Qatar, Russia was another one of the EU's two largest LNG suppliers and American LNG cannot replace the shear volume of necessary imports, especially given EU efforts to phase out Russian gas. Even so, the recently announced $750 billion EU-U.S. trade deal signals the potential for more supply to come from America. While EU leadership may find it more ideologically consistent to stick to the CSDDD rules and phase out continued gas trade with Qatar, implementing that strategy would prove challenging, to say the least. Shifting and diversifying European energy policies would be strategically advantageous in the long term. By looking to nations like the United States and re-examining nuclear energy policies, the EU may be able to carve out a path toward energy security without relying on Qatar and Russia.
Forbes
a day ago
- Business
- Forbes
Europe Isolated: Qatar Threatens LNG Embargo Against The EU
Qatar has warned that it may stop exporting liquefied natural gas to the European Union in response to the Brussels corporate sustainability due diligence directive, which entered into force on July 25th, 2025. The CSDDD requires large companies to remedy environmental harm and human rights concerns (such as forced labor) in their supply chains or incur fines. The rules apply to both EU and non-EU companies with a yearly turnover greater than €450 million. Notably, the rules will not take full effect until 2027 and will be implemented gradually through 2029 based on company size. Qatari outrage over the directive reflects the country's reliance on fossil fuel exports, systemic exploitation of foreign workers, and spotty international reputation. In a letter to Belgium's government, Qatar's Minister of Energy, Saad Sherida Al-Kaabi, who is also President and CEO and Deputy Chairman of state-owned QatarEnergy, wrote that if 'further changes are not made to CSDDD, the State of Qatar and QatarEnergy will have no choice but to seriously consider alternative markets outside of the EU for our LNG and other products.' In his letter, he pushed back on the European directive's climate goals, affirming that Doha has no plans to achieve net zero emissions anytime soon. To meet its needs for gas without having to rely on Russia or Qatar, EU countries may look to buying more LNG from the U.S. or other suppliers or revisit their nuclear energy policy. Qatar's History of Labor Rights Abuses Qatar's response to the CSDDD was likely spurred not only by the outsized role of fossil fuels in its economy, but also by its ongoing neglect of safe labor practices. When Qatar won the bid in 2010 to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup, the next decade cast a harsh light on Qatar's treatment of the migrant workers building the stadiums and infrastructure as well as constructing the country's first subway system to handle the crowds of anticipated spectators. In 2022, World Cup Chief Hassan al-Thawadi confirmed that 400-500 migrant workers died working on construction connected to the tournament. In reality, the death toll was probably much higher. Workers were also subjected to unpaid wages, forced labor, dangerously long hours, and other types of abuse. Despite promised reforms and the official abolition of the highly exploitative kefala system in 2016, the Global Slavery Index 2023 estimated that 6.8 people per every 1,000 of Qatar's 2021 population of 2,818,060 were living in modern slavery, hardly a boon for the Emirate closely controlled by the Al Thani clan for generations For now, at least, Qatar is publicly expressing concern only regarding the CSDDD provisions requiring businesses to implement climate transition plans. Effects on European Energy This is not the first time Qatar has threatened to cut off LNG exports to Europe over the CSDDD. In December 2024, Al-Kaabi said in reference to the associated penalties, 'If the case is that I lose 5 percent of my generated revenue by going to Europe, I will not go to Europe... I'm not bluffing.' If Doha follows through on its threats, the consequences will be negative for European energy security, but EU members can replace the Qatari supply with product from the U.S., Nigeria, Algeria, and Mozambique. While Qataris could likely find alternate buyers, particularly in Asia, their insistence on long-term contracts with restrictive resale provisions may push Asian buyers, especially the Japanese and South Koreans, to avoid Qatari LNG. The share of Qatari LNG imports in the EU's total gas portfolio has increased as Europe continues to seek alternatives to Russian LNG in the wake of Putin's second invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In the first quarter of 2024, Qatari LNG accounted for 9.1% of the EU's total imports, and in the first quarter of 2025, this number increased to 10.8%. In 2023, QatarEnergy entered into large LNG contracts with three major companies to supply gas to Europe. It agreed to supply Shell, Eni, and TotalEnergies with several million tons of LNG per year for the next 27 years, providing energy to the Netherlands, Italy, and France, respectively. Europe's reliance on foreign LNG stems from policies across several of its states prioritizing renewables to the exclusion of more reliable forms of baseload energy like nuclear, leaving foreign sources of LNG a key component of the continent's energy mix. This, in turn, has rendered the EU vulnerable to shocks from powers ideologically and strategically opposed to the West. Qatar is directing hundreds of millions of dollars into US academic institutions and think tanks, is the key funder of the global radical Islamist movement the Muslim Brotherhood, and a key sponsor of the Hamas terrorist movement in Gaza and the West Bank. Doha also has close relations with the Taliban and played a key role in facilitating its return to power. Besides Qatar, the EU's two largest LNG suppliers are Russia and the U.S. Russian LNG cannot replace another 10.8% of imports, especially given EU efforts to phase out Russian gas. Whether Europe could turn to the U.S. for more LNG remains to be seen, but the recently announced $750 billion EU-U.S. trade deal signals the potential for more supply to come from America. The Way Forward for the EU The EU is stuck between its own policy priorities, strict regulatory framework (CSDDD as an example), and its reliance on Qatari and other imported gas. The EU leadership may find it more ideologically consistent to stick to the CSDDD rules and phase out continued gas trade with Qatar. Shifting and diversifying its energy policy is strategically sound in the long term. By looking to nations like the United States, a trade partner more aligned with the CSDDD's values, and re-examining and reverting to nuclear energy, the EU can carve out a path toward energy security without caving to adversarial, oppressive and anti-democratic actors like Qatar and Russia.
DW
31-07-2025
- Business
- DW
Why Qatar's gas lifeline to Germany is at risk – DW – 07/31/2025
Qatar is due to supply 2 million tons of liquefied natural gas to Germany from next year. The deal is now under threat from an EU directive on rights and the climate that critics say is too costly and bureaucratic. In November 2022, as Europe grappled with an escalating energy crisis, Germany sealed a deal with Qatar to import up to 2 million tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) annually from the Gulf state. The agreement, due to start next year, was part of Europe's broader strategy to reduce reliance on Russian gas following Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Nearly three years later, Qatar has threatened to halt LNG deliveries to Europe in a row over a European Union directive aimed at improving ethical standards in global trade. German newspaper reported last weekend (July 26/27) that Qatari authorities have written to several EU governments urging Brussels to revise the directive. The letters warned that, without substantial changes, Qatar may redirect LNG exports to markets offering a "more stable and business-friendly environment." The EU's Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), adopted last year, orders large European firms to scrutinize their global supply chains — from raw materials to finished products — to spot and fix issues like human rights abuses or environmental harm. The directive also mandates that companies develop climate transition plans aligned with the 2015 Paris Agreement. While the CSDDD has been praised by human rights and environmental advocates, it has drawn criticism from industry groups and non-EU suppliers for its high compliance costs, administrative burden and international legal scope. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Qatar complained that the directive's climate protection rules "go beyond the objectives and intentions" of the Paris Agreement, adding that "high fines, penalties, and civil liability for noncompliance" pose a risk for state-owned QatarEnergy, the world's largest LNG producer. The CSDDD conflicts with Qatar's national energy strategy. The Gulf country's economy is deeply tied to LNG, which it sees as a "green" transition fuel rather than a climate liability. Doha says it wants to make gradual, measurable progress towards carbon-neutrality, without undermining its energy exports. "Qatar and some other oil producers and exporters have not yet put net-zero pathways in place," Andreas Goldthau, a professor of Public Policy at the University of Erfurt in Germany, told DW. Goldthau said this puts them at risk of EU penalties for failure to comply with the CSDDD. Under the directive, firms could face fines of up to 5% of global annual turnover if they don't carry out due diligence checks. For QatarEnergy, which reported $48.6 billion (€42.2 billion) in revenue for 2024, that could translate to a $2.43 billion penalty. Since the Ukraine war began, Qatar has supplied 12-14% of Europe's LNG needs, according to data provider Kpler, sending a total of 37.1 million metric tons of the gas to the bloc. The 2022 deal with Germany is expected to further boost Europe's supply. Analysts warn that any disruption to these volumes, especially during peak winter demand, could tighten supply and trigger a renewed surge in energy prices. Thierry Bros, a professor at Sciences Po University in Paris, told DW that it was "unsurprising" that Qatar was now threatening supplies as "no company" wants to be exposed to an "overly complex and burdensome piece of legislation." "Instead of entering protracted negotiations, Qatar has chosen a more assertive approach — acting early and decisively to position itself for a full exemption from the directive," he said. EU states were initially expected to turn the CSDDD into national legislation by next year, initially targeting firms with more than 5,000 employees and annual turnovers of over €1.5 billion. By 2029, smaller firms with headcounts of 1,000 or more will be required to comply. But faced with growing pushback from the likes of Germany, France and Italy, as well as the finance and energy sectors, Brussels has now proposed a two-year delay, till June 2028. "The EU already relaxed some of those requirements, pushing some back into the second half of the decade," said Goldthau. A key legal question now looms: Can Brussels legitimately impose steep fines on non-EU firms like QatarEnergy? Experts believe practical challenges and trade implications may complicate any enforcement action. If not, the financial burden may shift to its European partners. "Importers with legal entities within Europe could be asked to withhold payments to QatarEnergy as fines by proxy," Goldthau speculated. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Qatar's move may be strategically sound, but its timing has raised eyebrows. Some analysts believe Doha is leveraging the recent US-EU trade tensions to push for an exemption. But just this weekend, Brussels agreed $750 billion (€650 billion) worth of US LNG purchases as part of the tariff deal with US President Donald Trump, dealing a major blow to the country's approach. "I'm puzzled why Qatar put this forward right now," Goldthau told DW. After all, he added, Trump has just struck a deal that gives Brussels another excuse to "pivot to the US." But Bros sees it differently, believing that Qatar's move is well timed to capitalize on Europe's lingering vulnerability from the post-Ukraine energy crisis. "The LNG market remains tight and will likely stay that way for another three years, giving Qatar significant leverage at precisely the right moment to exert pressure," he said. With global LNG demand projected to rise to over 600 million tons per annum by 2030, Qatar's North Field expansion and long-term contracts help position the emirate as a critical energy supplier to Europe. But if EU regulations become too burdensome, Qatar may accelerate its pivot to Asia, where demand is booming and compliance costs are much lower.
Time of India
26-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Qatar threatened to cut EU LNG supplies over sustainability law
Qatar has threatened to cut gas supplies to the European Union in response to the bloc's due diligence law on forced labour and environmental damage, a letter from Qatar to the Belgian government, seen by Reuters, showed. Qatar is the world's third-largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG), after the United States and Australia. It has provided between 12 per cent and 14 per cent of Europe's LNG since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. In a letter to the Belgian government dated May 21, Qatari Energy Minister Saad al-Kaabi said the country was reacting to the EU's corporate sustainability due diligence directive ( CSDDD ), which requires larger companies operating in the EU to find and fix human rights and environmental issues in their supply chains. "Put simply, if further changes are not made to CSDDD, the State of Qatar and QatarEnergy will have no choice but to seriously consider alternative markets outside of the EU for our LNG and other products, which offer a more stable and welcoming business environment," said the letter. A spokesperson for Belgium's representation to the EU declined to comment on the letter, which was first reported by German newspaper Welt am Sonntag. The European Commission also received a letter from Qatar, dated May 13, a Commission spokesperson told Reuters, noting that EU lawmakers and countries are currently negotiating changes to the CSDDDD. "It is now for them to negotiate and adopt the substantive simplification changes proposed by the Commission," the spokesperson said. Brussels proposed changes to the CSDDD earlier this year to reduce its requirements - including by delaying its launch by a year, to mid-2028, and limiting the checks companies will have to make down their supply chains. Companies that fail to comply could face fines of up to 5 per cent of global turnover. Qatar said the EU's changes had not gone far enough. In the letter, Kaabi said Qatar was particularly concerned about the CSDDD's requirement for companies have a climate change transition plan aligned with preventing global warming exceeding 1.5 celsius - the goal of the Paris Agreement. "Neither the State of Qatar nor QatarEnergy have any plans to achieve net zero in the near future," said the letter, which said the CSDDD undermined countries' right to set their own national contributions towards the Paris Agreement goals. In an annex to the letter, also seen by Reuters, Qatar proposed removing the section of CSDDD which includes the requirement for climate transition plans. Kaabi is also chief executive of QatarEnergy. Qatar Energy gas has long-term supply contracts with major European companies, including Shell, TotalEnergies and ENI.
Reuters
22-07-2025
- 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?
