home
news

From rushed reactions to proper preparedness: Corporate due diligence in times of armed conflict

share this article

The Russian war in Ukraine has, in addition to the COVID-19 global pandemic, once again highlighted the need for corporate human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD) regulation, such as the proposed EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).

‍

After the start of the Russian invasion, many European companies struggled with the challenges of conducting business in the region responsibly. Issues arose in relation to the provision of essential services to affected people; engagment with employees on safety, protective measures, salaries and relocations; alongside highly-publicised questions over whether, when and how to responsibly exit the Russian and Belarussian markets. (As of early June 2022, almost 1000 companies have announced their withdrawal from Russia).

The type of business relationships European companies maintained in Russia prior to the war (the provision of technology services to the Russian military, for example); how companies reacted immediately after the invasion; and how they continue to react is significant and, in many cases, has been costly to affected persons as well as companies themselves.

The scale and divergent nature of these reactions show the urgent need for crosssectoral HREDD obligations in order to ensure common standards of responsible business conduct and private sector preparedness in the face of future crises.

This briefing:

  • addresses the urgent need for HREDD statutory obligations to foster preventive action and decision-making in order to ensure that companies do not contribute to armed conflict, whilst empowering them to respond better to future situations of crisis;
  • proposes recommendations for the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) in this regard.
Read the full briefing
    (
5,61 MB
)

You may also like these news

SFDR 2.0 Trilogues: Where do the co-legislators stand?

We've compared the different positions of the European Commission, Council of the EU and the European Parliament on the review of the SFDR. Read below our recommendations for this trilogue.

Parliament's SFDR review position: tougher tests for Transition, too little for ESG Basics

With trilogue negotiations on the SFDR review due to start on October 22, we take a closer look at the European Parliament's, the strongest position of the three co-legislators texts.

Two years of CSRD reporting: greater transparency, but strategy is lagging behind

We analysed the 2025 reports of 100 large EU companies disclosing sustainability information under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) to assess how companies are addressing critical sustainability challenges in their strategy.