Sustainability Due Diligence after the Omnibus: Legal Implications for the CSDDD

The document analyzes how the 2026 Omnibus directive weakened the CSDDD by significantly reducing the number of companies in scope, removing mandatory climate transition plans, and fragmenting the civil liability regime. It argues that these changes undermine the directive's original intent to foster responsible corporate behavior and increase legal uncertainty for both companies and victims of human rights and environmental abuses.

• The Omnibus revision significantly narrows the CSDDD's company scope, increasing the employee threshold from 1,000 to 5,000 and the net worldwide turnover threshold from EUR 450 million to EUR 1.5 billion. This results in a scope reduction of approximately 70%, leaving the directive applicable to roughly 1,000 corporate groups or 1,500 companies across the EU.
• The Omnibus directive expands the scope of maximum harmonisation to cover nearly the entire due diligence process, including group-level due diligence, risk identification, prioritisation, notification, complaint mechanisms, monitoring, and communication. This prevents Member States from adopting stricter standards for these specific provisions during national transposition.
• The requirement for companies to adopt and implement climate transition plans aligned with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C goal has been completely deleted from the CSDDD. The analysis argues this increases legal uncertainty and exposure to climate litigation by creating a fragmented landscape of sector-specific and disclosure-based obligations.
• The Omnibus revision modifies the civil liability regime by deleting the harmonised EU-wide framework, the overriding mandatory provision (OMP) clause, and the possibility for representative actions. Consequently, liability is determined by national law or the Rome II Regulation, which may lead EU courts to apply the laws of non-EU countries where damage occurred, potentially denying compensation to victims.
• Stakeholder engagement requirements have been weakened by narrowing the definition of stakeholders to exclude consumers, civil society organisations, and national human rights and environmental institutions. Additionally, consultation is no longer required for responsible disengagement or the development of monitoring indicators.
• The interval for internal monitoring of due diligence effectiveness has been extended from twelve months to five years, creating a misalignment with annual external reporting obligations under Article 16.
• The maximum limit for penalties imposed by Member State authorities has been reduced from a minimum of 5% of net worldwide turnover to 3% of turnover, and fines are no longer strictly required to be based on turnover.

APA

Riccardi, F., Mautray, Q., & Otten, J. (2026). Sustainability Due Diligence after the Omnibus: Legal Implications for the CSDDD. ClientEarth. https://www.clientearth.org/media/rpfkpapv/client-earth-legal-analysis_v3.pdf

Chicago

Riccardi, Francesca, Quentin Mautray, and Julia Otten. Sustainability Due Diligence after the Omnibus: Legal Implications for the CSDDD. ClientEarth, 2026. https://www.clientearth.org/media/rpfkpapv/client-earth-legal-analysis_v3.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Riccardi |first1=Francesca |last2=Mautray |first2=Quentin |last3=Otten |first3=Julia |title=Sustainability Due Diligence after the Omnibus: Legal Implications for the CSDDD |publisher=ClientEarth |date=February 2026 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/rpfkpapv/client-earth-legal-analysis_v3.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{riccardi2026sustainability, author = {Riccardi, Francesca and Mautray, Quentin and Otten, Julia}, title = {{Sustainability Due Diligence after the Omnibus: Legal Implications for the CSDDD}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2026}, month = feb, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/rpfkpapv/client-earth-legal-analysis_v3.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }