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.
Due diligence is a precondition for the sustainable activities as defined by the EU Taxonomy and green financing under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, including green bonds. Particular ESG due diligence requirements will be regulated by the forthcoming Sustainable Corporate Governance Directive. To help companies better understand its scope and to clarify its requirements, Frank Bold is hosting a webinar. It will feature international experts from companies such as Ericsson and outdoor clothing manufacturer Vaude. We invite you to join us on 26 January at 10 am CET.
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.
