In light of the severity and the short timeframe that remains to take action to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, it is important that the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) leaves no legal ambiguity concerning corporate obligations regarding climate change.
In light of the severity and the short timeframe that remains to take action to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, it is important that the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) leaves no legal ambiguity concerning corporate obligations regarding climate change. The aim of this paper is to provide recommendations on Article 15 "Combating climate change" of the Commission’s proposal which lacks precision regarding the targets and content of the transition plans it refers to. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) already provides a baseline for coherence. CSDDD should not fall behind that baseline, in order for both legislations to support the effectiveness of one another.
These recommendations on Article 15 need to be accompanied by changes to Article 3 of the proposed CSDDD, that would ensure a comprehensive approach to the definition of environmental adverse impacts. The definition should not only capture the effect that companies have on all three - the environment, climate and human rights - but also how these are interdependent and what damage prevention entails.
A new study by the Frank Bold expert group analyses the legal regulation of community energy in EU member states down to the practical implementation. In response, it presents seven specific recommendations to improve the legislation of energy laws, as well as the planned implementing regulations.
Last Friday, we submitted our recommendations to the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB)’s agenda priorities.
Today, the European Parliament has adopted its negotiating position on the proposal for a Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). A majority of 366 Members of the Parliament voted in favour of almost all the amendments endorsed by the Committee on Legal Affairs in April, with 225 votes against and 38 abstentions.
