A new legal briefing by Frank Bold unpacks the new restrictions on information requests to business suppliers following the Omnibus 1 revisions to the CSRD and CSDDD, and explains the practical implications for companies.
As part of the sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), companies need to request sustainability-related information from their value chain partners.
The Omnibus 1 Directive introduced restrictions on how and when such information requests can be made in order to protect suppliers from disproportionate requests. These consist of the value chain cap under the CSRD and the limits on information requests under the CSDDD. For companies in scope of these directives, it is important to understand the new restrictions.
The publication also points to legal uncertainties resulting from the European Commission’s proposed Voluntary Standard when it comes to due diligence scoping, GHG data and climate risk information and proposes practical steps for companies to preserve effective supply chain management while remaining fully compliant with the caps.
If you have any questions about the briefing, please get in contact with Senior Policy Officer Julia Otten at julia.otten@frankbold.org.
In mid-December, the European Commission acknowledged a large part of the arguments put forward by the Czechia in an effort to prevent the expansion and continuation of illegal mining at the Turów mine in Poland, that endangers the sources of drinking water for thousands of people in the Liberec region and, according to new studies, has serious impacts on groundwater in Germany as well. Frank Bold's lawyers, who defend the interests of Czech citizens, have long been involved in the case.
The Frank Bold Society and the Neighbourhood Association Uhelná called on the Czech government today to be more consistent in its negotiations with Poland over mining at the Turów brown coal mine. According to both organisations, the government did not have enough information or time to prepare an agreement that would truly protect Czech interests. Moreover, the government has acted in a non-transparent manner by failing to inform the public in advance of the terms of the agreement being prepared, which should lead to the withdrawal of the action against Poland at the EU Court of Justice. The organisations have therefore drawn up a document with seven basic demands on which the Czech side should insist.
The European Commission recently introduced a draft of the revised EU ETS Directive which, among other things, proposes that 100 % of ETS revenues should be used for environmental measures. We welcome this idea but we’re also sceptical about how the ETS revenues are used in the Czech Republic. Therefore, we have prepared an analysis mapping the use of ETS revenues in Czech Republic and sent it to the European Commission as an input for the recent public consultation. The main conclusions are presented below.
