The EU’s CSRD and CSDDD Regulations

Introduction

As the European Union increasingly integrates sustainability into its regulatory framework, two key directives have emerged: the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). These regulations are designed to enhance transparency and accountability in corporate sustainability practices, particularly concerning environmental and human rights impacts. For companies that fall within the scope of these directives, understanding the synergies, differences, and requirements is essential for compliance and for maintaining a positive corporate reputation.

Understanding CSRD and CSDDD

Overview of CSRD

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) builds upon the previous Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) and significantly expands the scope of sustainability reporting. CSRD mandates that large companies, as well as listed SMEs, report on a wide range of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors. This directive aims to enhance the quality and consistency of sustainability data across the EU, providing investors, stakeholders, and the public with reliable information on companies’ sustainability impacts.

Overview of CSDDD

The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) goes a step further by requiring companies to conduct human rights and environmental due diligence across their value chains. This includes identifying, preventing, mitigating, and accounting for actual and potential adverse impacts on human rights and the environment. CSDDD applies to large companies with a significant presence in the EU market, including both EU and non-EU companies. It introduces a legal obligation for companies to take appropriate measures to address adverse impacts, with potential civil liability for non-compliance.

Key Synergies Between CSRD and CSDDD

1. Annual Reporting Requirements

Both CSRD and CSDDD require companies to report annually on their sustainability practices. This alignment allows companies to streamline their reporting processes, as CSDDD-compliant companies can integrate their due diligence reports within their CSRD disclosures. This synergy reduces the administrative burden on companies, particularly those with limited resources dedicated to sustainability reporting.

2. Risk-Based Approach

Both directives emphasize a risk-based approach to due diligence, referencing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (MNE Guidelines). Companies are expected to prioritize their efforts based on the severity and likelihood of impacts, rather than applying equal resources to all potential issues. This approach helps companies focus on the most critical areas of their operations and value chains, ensuring that their sustainability efforts are both effective and efficient.

3. Clarity in Terminology: Risks vs. Impacts

CSRD and CSDDD bring clarity to the often-confused terminology of “risks” and “impacts.” In these directives, “impacts” refer to adverse effects on human rights and the environment, while “risks” pertain to the potential negative financial effects on the company arising from social and environmental issues. This distinction is crucial for businesses as it guides how they assess and report on their sustainability practices.

4. Integration of Social and Environmental Issues

Both directives cover a broad range of social and environmental issues, including labor rights, climate change, pollution, biodiversity, and waste management. Importantly, they highlight the interconnectedness of social and environmental issues, such as how environmental degradation can lead to social harm. This integrated approach encourages companies to develop comprehensive sustainability strategies that address the full spectrum of their impacts.

5. Action Plans for Adverse Impacts

CSRD and CSDDD recognize that adverse impacts cannot always be completely avoided. Instead, they require companies to develop action plans to prevent, mitigate, and remediate these impacts. Companies must demonstrate that they have robust processes in place to address actual and potential adverse impacts, with a focus on those most likely to occur or with the most severe consequences.

6. Focus on Own Operations and Value Chain

Both directives require companies to consider the full scope of their value chains, from raw material sourcing to final product disposal. This end-to-end approach ensures that companies take responsibility for their entire supply chain, not just their direct operations. Mapping value chains and identifying areas of heightened risk are critical steps in meeting the requirements of both CSRD and CSDDD.

Key Differences Between CSRD and CSDDD

1. Double Materiality and Reporting Scope

One of the key differences between CSRD and CSDDD lies in their approach to materiality. CSRD adopts a “double materiality” perspective, requiring companies to report on both the impact of their operations on the environment and society (inside-out) and the impact of environmental and social factors on the company’s financial performance (outside-in). In contrast, CSDDD focuses solely on the inside-out perspective, emphasizing the identification and management of adverse impacts on human rights and the environment.

This difference in scope means that while CSRD requires a broader range of disclosures, CSDDD is more narrowly focused on due diligence processes and outcomes. Companies that comply with CSRD may still need to undertake additional efforts to meet CSDDD requirements, particularly in areas where adverse impacts do not pass the CSRD’s materiality threshold.

2. Downstream Value Chains

Another significant difference is the treatment of downstream value chains. While CSRD requires detailed reporting on issues relevant to consumers and end-users, CSDDD’s scope is more limited, focusing primarily on upstream activities and certain downstream processes, such as distribution and storage. This narrower scope under CSDDD does not override CSRD obligations, meaning companies must still address downstream issues if they are material to their overall sustainability impact.

3. Reporting on Financial Risks and Opportunities

CSRD places a stronger emphasis on integrating sustainability with financial reporting. Companies are required to disclose how sustainability risks and opportunities impact their financial performance, investment plans, and funding sources. This integration of ESG and financial data necessitates close collaboration between sustainability and finance teams within companies. In contrast, CSDDD does not require companies to assess financial risks and opportunities, focusing instead on the direct impacts of their operations.

4. Responsible Purchasing and Contracting Practices

CSDDD introduces specific requirements for responsible purchasing practices, particularly in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This aims to prevent larger companies from outsourcing their due diligence obligations to smaller suppliers, ensuring that human rights and environmental standards are maintained throughout the value chain. CSRD, on the other hand, mentions contractual arrangements only in the context of obtaining necessary value chain information, without imposing specific risk-sharing principles.

Challenges and Considerations for Companies

The overlapping and distinct requirements of CSRD and CSDDD present several challenges for companies, particularly those with complex global value chains. Companies must develop robust due diligence processes that align with both directives, while also ensuring that their sustainability reporting meets the comprehensive requirements of CSRD.

Integrating Due Diligence and Reporting

One of the main challenges is integrating due diligence processes with sustainability reporting. Companies need to ensure that their human rights and environmental due diligence efforts are fully aligned with their CSRD disclosures. This requires a thorough understanding of the materiality of different impacts and how they should be reported.

Balancing Internal and External Demands

Companies must also balance the internal demands of meeting these regulatory requirements with the external expectations of stakeholders. This includes managing relationships with suppliers, customers, investors, and regulators, all of whom have a vested interest in the company’s sustainability performance.

Leveraging Technology and Data

Given the complexity of these requirements, companies should consider leveraging technology and data analytics to manage their sustainability reporting and due diligence processes. Advanced data management systems can help companies track their impacts across the value chain, assess materiality, and report accurately on their sustainability performance.

Conclusion

The EU’s CSRD and CSDDD regulations represent a significant shift in the way companies approach sustainability. These directives not only require companies to be transparent about their impacts but also to take proactive steps to address human rights and environmental risks across their value chains. While the synergies between the two directives offer opportunities for streamlined compliance, the differences necessitate careful planning and execution.

For companies navigating these new regulatory landscapes, the key to success lies in integrating due diligence processes with comprehensive sustainability reporting, leveraging technology, and fostering collaboration across internal functions. By doing so, companies can not only comply with these regulations but also enhance their overall sustainability performance, ultimately contributing to a more sustainable and equitable global economy.

Interested in speaking with our consultants? Click here to get in touch

Some sections of this article were crafted using artificial intelligence technology