CSDDD Hangs in theBalance – What’s at Stake?
February 23, 2024

Despite political agreement on a revised version of the proposed Corporate Sustainability Due
Diligence Directive (CSDDD)1 being reached between the European Parliament and the EuropeanCouncil in December 2023, a confirmatory vote scheduled to be held in the Council on February 9 was
postponed twice, the second time without a new date set, after the German liberal party (FDP) forced
the country’s coalition government to announce that it would abstain from voting.
This article explores what is now at stake for the future of corporate sustainability due diligence in theEU. It notes a number of key areas where CSDDD goes beyond the requirements of the EU’s
Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) (which CSDDD was intended to complement),
which took effect in January 2024 and requires companies to report on their sustainability due
diligence processes. It asks whether, contrary to the FDP’s assertion, corporate interests may in fact
be best served by the adoption on an EU harmonised regime on corporate sustainability due diligence.

Recent Developments
Under the rules of the European Council’s qualified majority voting procedure (which requires at least 15countries representing at least 65% of the EU’s population to vote in favour of a measure), an abstention
effectively represents a ‘no’ vote. Following Germany’s announcement, Italy and a number of other EU member
states reportedly indicated that they, too, would abstain from voting, throwing into doubt whether the hardwon version of the text provisionally agreed with the Parliament in December 2023 will be approved by theCouncil.
The political agreement reached in December 2023 was seen as a significant milestone. While there had beensome criticism2 that it did not go far enough to improve human rights and environmental outcomes along
global value chains, the deal was broadly welcomed as an important step forward, with the EU legislative andexecutive institutions having resolved the most contentious issues associated with the Directive (including as to1

Proposed EU Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (2022/0051) (COD).

2

CSDDD political deal: A pivotal step but a missed opportunity to embrace transformative change. [online] European Coalition for Corporate
Justice. Available here. [Accessed 22 Feb. 2024]

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLPscope and provisions regarding corporate liability). However, the FDP has focused its objections on theperceived additional burdens that the Directive would impose on companies, including potential indirect
impacts on SMEs, and its stance now threatens the future of the Directive.
With European elections looming in June, the legislative time to adopt CSDDD during this Parliamentary termis running out. Amid expectations that centre-left and green parties will lose seats in the elections, casting
doubt on whether CSDDD could successfully be held over to the next term, there is increasing concern amonginterested parties that the Directive will fail at the penultimate hurdle, two years on from the Commission’s
original proposal3 (which itself was the product of years of effort by a range of stakeholders).
The Belgian Presidency of the Council now has, at most, until the first few days of March to find a sufficientmajority among member states, and for a vote to take place in the Council, to ensure that the Parliament hasenough time to approve the legislation prior to the elections.
To secure the vote, the Presidency will need either Germany or Italy to reverse their current positions and votein favour of the Directive, which could require potentially significant compromises on key parts of the existing
text and/or the promise of concessions on other legislative files.
Formally reopening negotiations at this stage between the Parliament and the Council would push the CSDDD
file into the next term, where a newly constituted Parliament could be more politically hostile to a mandatory
corporate sustainability due diligence regime.
An unsuccessful vote in the Council would effectively reset the clock on CSDDD, sending the legislative fileback to the start of the process, and requiring a newly formed Commission to resurrect a proposal in the nextterm, which would very likely have to be significantly watered down.
As such, it seems increasingly likely that the Belgian Presidency will be forced to present a compromise versionof the text that it hopes will be acceptable to enough member states in the Council, but without the opportunity
to formally engage the Parliament in discussions on the revised content. The Belgian Presidency (and otherinterested parties) will also have to hope that any such amended version is still sufficiently acceptable to pass aparliamentary vote (which is expected but by no means assured).

What’s at Stake?
The Opportunity to Make a Normative Shift
Although the proposed CSDDD is by no means the first legislation to mandate sustainability-related due
diligence and disclosure at the EU level across industries and sectors,4 it represents a policy breakthrough at ascale not yet seen at a pan-EU level by virtue of the framework it would establish. Namely, binding legal
obligations that would, in effect, codify much of the existing international framework defining responsible
business conduct in relation to internationally recognised fundamental human rights, protections against
exploitation, and environmental protection.
CSDDD seeks to transform existing soft law instruments into compulsory hard law requirements for certain EU
and non-EU companies doing business in the EU (and would indirectly affect many additional companies byvirtue of their position in covered companies’ supply chains).

3Corporate sustainability due diligence. [online] European Commission. Available here.

4In addition to the CSRD, see e.g., the EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, Batteries Regulation, Conflict Minerals Regulation,Deforestation Regulation, Digital Services Act and Timber Regulation.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

2

Specifically, if adopted, CSDDD would require in-scope companies to conduct risk-based human rights andenvironmental due diligence, informed by the perspectives of affected stakeholders, and to identify, preventand mitigate potential adverse impacts, and bring to an end or minimise actual adverse impacts where they arecaused by or contributed to by the company, or where the company is directly linked to an adverse impact –thereby capturing both the company’s own operations (including subsidiaries and affiliates) and those of thirdparty entities in the company’s value chain (or “chain of activities”).
CSDDD is heavily influenced by and specifically recognises the approaches to due diligence set out in the UN
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP) and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational
Enterprises (OECD Guidelines), including the six steps outlined in the OECD Due Diligence Guidance forResponsible Business Conduct relating to due diligence and supporting measures.
By directly incorporating these international frameworks for responsible business conduct, and defining harms
by reference to the abuse of and/or the protection of human rights enshrined in international instruments andadverse environmental impacts resulting from the violation of prohibitions and obligations pursuant tointernational environmental conventions, CSDDD would impose a high standard of conduct on in-scopecompanies which, for many industries, would go significantly beyond current business practices.
By imposing such obligations on companies, CSDDD identifies the private sector as a central actor, alongside
government, in achieving better outcomes where human rights, environmental and climate change-related
goals are concerned.
The expectation for CSDDD to deliver a significant normative shift in responsible business conduct has been
described by its supporters as a decisive moment that will both assist in addressing corporate governance gaps
with respect to sustainability and human rights issues, and also send a forceful message that companies activein Europe must take long-term business issues relating to human rights and environmental sustainability
seriously. Several industry associations and companies have expressed and maintained their support for theDirective.
The normative shift in EU policy represented by CSDDD is perhaps best demonstrated by contrasting theframework that CSDDD would establish with the framework CSRD has already established. Whereas CSRD
itself represents a significant shift in the breadth and depth of corporate sustainability reporting in the EU (andthe volume and granularity of sustainability information that must be cumulatively reported under CSRD goessignificantly beyond any current mandatory sustainability reporting regime globally5), its principle
requirements are disclosure-based, rather than focusing specifically on prevention or mitigation of harm, evenas they reinforce the need for due diligence (to fulfill disclosure requirements).
The current draft text of CSDDD, in addition to imposing comprehensive due diligence requirements oncompanies, also requires them to develop climate transition plans that aim to align with the temperature goalsof the Paris Agreement, with time-bound targets to reduce Scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emissions.
In addition, companies that intentionally fail to comply with or are negligent in complying with their due
diligence or remediation obligations may be subject to supervision and enforcement actions by member states,
administrative penalties, and civil liability actions brought by individuals, trade unions or NGOs to enforce therights of victims of harm caused by companies. This includes injunctive measures or damages, which, whererelevant, can be applied on a joint and several basis with business partners that are jointly responsible forharm.

5Simpson Thacher & Bartlett (2023). EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD): 5 Key Considerations for U.S. Companies [online]
Available here.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

3

At present, theoretically any of the above aspects of CSDDD are at risk of being negotiated out of the CSDDD
framework, which given the extensive global reach of supply chains servicing the EU market, would have
impacts extending beyond the EU’s borders.
More generally, there could be adverse effects to the CSRD framework caused by any delay to or abandonmentof CSDDD. Although EU member states have until July 6, 2024 to implement CSRD into national law (with thefirst group of companies required to report in 2025 for their 2024 financial years), the Swedish government
has already put forward a proposal to delay the first reporting cycle for Swedish companies to the 2025
financial period, and a successful pushback against CSDDD could potentially embolden other member states todelay their own implementation, or even to try to unwind some of CSRD’s requirements.

EU Harmonisation and Legal Certainty
Another key policy aspect of CSDDD is the need to harmonise corporate sustainability due diligence obligationsat an EU level to create a level playing field for the EU’s internal market, including from the perspective ofcompanies already implementing due diligence in line with existing international standards.
A number of EU member states have already introduced or are preparing to introduce national due diligencelaws. Although member states would be largely free to introduce stricter requirements, creating harmonised
EU due diligence standards should prevent a patchwork of requirements from proliferating across the EU andpotentially act as a barrier to trade within the internal market.
While it seems unlikely that the failure to adopt CSDDD at an EU level will result in 27 different due diligencelaws that do not reference interoperability, even if a small number of large EU economies adopted different
standards this could be challenging for companies to comply with, particularly if they have significant
operations or business partners in multiple member states.
More generally, many companies already engage with the UNGP and OECD Guidelines and have reviewed or
are in the process of reviewing their existing due diligence processes and business practices to better align withthem—some engaging in preemptive compliance with CSDDD based on available drafts.
CSDDD’s explicit recognition of existing methodologies (including the OECD’s six steps for due diligence) andits permissive approach to the use of existing business tools provide companies with greater certainty that they
can continue to invest in these areas. Loss of that certainty exposes early movers not only to the risk ofpotentially fracturing European standards, but also to potential international exposure if the recognition
afforded by CSDDD to companies’ methodologies and tools is lost, resulting in a different ‘gold standard’
emerging in other key global markets.

Conclusion
Currently, CSDDD’s challenging gestation period seems no closer to a final resolution, and there is significant
uncertainty as to if, and in what form, the Directive will be adopted. The most immediate hurdle is a vote in theEuropean Council, which must occur by the first few days of March if the Directive is to have time to passthrough the Parliamentary process before the European elections. The degree of compromise that may beneeded to procure a ‘yes’ vote from Germany and/or Italy (plus probably at least one other member state)remains unknown.
A compromised Directive could undermine the normative shift that CSDDD seeks to achieve with respect toresponsible business conduct, but the ramifications could yet be felt more broadly if trust in the EU’s
institutions is undermined by this last-minute drama.
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

4

For further information regarding this Alert, please contact one of the following authors:
NEW YORK CITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

LONDON

Leah Malone

Emily B. HollandMatt Feehily+1-212-455-3560+1-202-636-5987+44-(0)20-7275-6232

leah.malone@stblaw.com

emily.holland@stblaw.com

matt.feehily@stblaw.com

Seungyeon Anderson+44-(0)20-7275-6500
seungyeon.anderson@stblaw.com

SimpsonThacherWorldwide

The contents of this publication are for informational purposes only. Neither this publication nor the lawyers who authored it are
rendering legal or other professional advice or opinions on specific facts or matters, nor does the distribution of this publication to any
person constitute the establishment of an attorney-client relationship. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP assumes no liability inconnection with the use of this publication. Please contact your relationship partner if we can be of assistance regarding these importantdevelopments. The names and office locations of all of our partners, as well as our recent memoranda, can be obtained from our website,www.simpsonthacher.com.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

5