Overview
On 8 May 2026, the NOVA Centre on Business, Human Rights and the Environment (NOVA BHRE), the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL), the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies (KU Leuven), the HIVA Research Institute for Work and Society (KU Leuven), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Westfälische Hochschule (WH), and Global Rights Compliance (GRC) hosted a workshop at NOVA School of Law in Lisbon, Portugal, to facilitate dialogue on the implementation of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive(CSDDD).
The event brought together 10 policymakers and over 30 experts from more than 20 countries across 5 continents. Participants included representatives from European and international institutions, including the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, the UN Global Compact, the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, the OECD, and the Council of Europe, alongside experts from academia, civil society, business, business organisations, multistakeholder initiatives (MSIs), legal practice, and human rights activists from the Global South.
A particular focus of the workshop was to foster constructive engagement between policymakers and experts in an informal setting. Operating under the Chatham House Rule, the event encouraged open discussion, peer learning, and the exchange of emerging practices across jurisdictions. The agenda was structured around three complementary themes: first, exchanges with policymakers on the state of national implementation processes and the principal challenges they face; second, discussions on the enforcement and implementation of human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD), including the role of supervisory authorities, practical guidance, and support measures; and third, interactive, participant-led discussions on key implementation issues identified by policymakers and other stakeholders.
Throughout the discussions, participants reflected on practical approaches to implementing the CSDDD, including the application of HREDD obligations, regulatory coherence, and capacity building measures. The workshop highlighted emerging good practices and practical solutions while underscoring the importance of continued cooperation among policymakers, businesses, civil society, international organisations, and other stakeholders in strengthening robust and effective HREDD frameworks.
Key Takeaways
Several cross-cutting themes emerged throughout the workshop. First, participants stressed the importance of preserving the CSDDD’s risk-based approach, consistent with international standards. Effective due diligence should focus on preventing and addressing the most severe human rights and environmental risks through continuous processes of risk assessment and prioritisation, stakeholder engagement, mitigation, and remediation, rather than through formalistic compliance exercises.
Second, effective implementation will require substantial investment in guidance, capacity building, and institutional support. Practical tools, sector-specific guidance, collaborative initiatives, and targeted assistance for SMEs and actors across global value chains were identified as essential for translating legal obligations into operational practices. Participants highlighted the value of collaborative funding mechanisms, public support schemes, and multi-stakeholder partnerships as examples of good practice that could be replicated across Member States and at EU level.
Third, participants emphasised that well-resourced and independent supervisory authorities will be critical to the effective enforcement of HREDD legislation. Effective supervision should combine preventative, learning-oriented approaches with credible enforcement powers and should be supported by multidisciplinary expertise, meaningful stakeholder engagement, and cooperation between supervisory authorities across different regulatory frameworks.
Fourth, discussions highlighted the importance of maintaining effective access to remedy while promoting legal certainty and coherence across Member States. Participants noted that recent amendments to the CSDDD have increased the significance of national implementation choices and may contribute to legal fragmentation. National transposition should therefore ensure clear pathways to remedy, coherent interaction between civil liability and other accountability mechanisms, and appropriate support for rights-holders seeking access to justice.
A further recurring theme was the need for greater regulatory coherence. Participants stressed the importance of aligning the CSDDD with other EU sustainability legislation, related areas of domestic law, and relevant international standards. National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights were identified as valuable coordination tools, while peer learning among Member States and practical, sector-specific European guidance were seen as important mechanisms for promoting consistent implementation and reducing unnecessary complexity.
The workshop also examined the contribution of multistakeholder initiatives, voluntary sustainability standards, and certification schemes. Participants agreed that these mechanisms can provide valuable support for HREDD implementation but should complement rather than replace companies’ own due diligence responsibilities. Greater transparency, stakeholder participation, and the development of recognition or benchmarking mechanisms were identified as important means of strengthening the credibility and effectiveness of such initiatives.
Across all sessions, participants underscored the importance of meaningful stakeholder engagement and sustained cooperation among policymakers, businesses, civil society organisations, rights-holders, international organisations, and other actors. Effective implementation of the CSDDD will depend on building strong institutional ecosystems that combine legal obligations with practical guidance, adequate resources, collaborative approaches, and continuous learning.
The workshop concluded that the transposition and implementation of the CSDDD should be viewed not merely as a legislative exercise but as an opportunity to strengthen responsible business conduct and promote sustainable and inclusive economic development. By fostering regulatory coherence, supporting effective supervision and access to remedy, investing in capacity building, and maintaining alignment with international standards, Member States can contribute to the development of robust and effective HREDD frameworks capable of delivering tangible benefits for people, the environment, and businesses alike.
Introduction
The workshop opened with welcoming remarks emphasising the importance of creating a trusted and collaborative space for dialogue on the transposition and implementation of the CSDDD.
The discussions focused on the idea of positive transposition, which seeks to ensure that national implementation of HREDD legislation delivers meaningful outcomes for people, the planet, and businesses alike by fostering responsible business conduct, creating legal certainty, and supporting long-term sustainable economic activity.
To set the scene for these discussions, the workshop opened with three keynote speeches that reflected on the broader significance of the CSDDD, the opportunities and challenges associated with its transposition, and the importance of maintaining an ambitious, risk-based approach grounded in international human rights standards.
The first keynote speech positioned the adoption of the CSDDD as a pivotal milestone, but emphasised that its adoption marks ’the end of the beginning’, to borrow John Ruggie’s phrase. Drawing parallels with the endorsement of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) in 2011, the speaker argued that meaningful impact will depend on how the Directive is translated into practice.
The speech highlighted the broader global influence of the CSDDD. Beyond the European Union, the Directive is already inspiring legislative discussions on mandatory HREDD in several jurisdictions, including South Korea, Thailand, Brazil and Switzerland. At the same time, supplier countries are increasingly adapting to the new regulatory landscape, recognizing that building local capacity on due diligence is essential for maintaining access to European markets.
While acknowledging the significant opportunities presented by the CSDDD, the speaker cautioned that positive outcomes are not guaranteed and that unintended consequences may emerge. To maximize the CSDDD’s transformative potential, the transposition process should be used strategically in three ways:
1. Building domestic consensus: Bringing together businesses, government bodies, civil society organisations, and other stakeholders to strengthen shared understanding of the value of meaningful HREDD and to support effective national implementation.
2. Strengthening capacity and learning: Using transposition as a catalyst for capacity building across all stakeholder groups and creating mechanisms for continuous learning and adaptation, recognizing that no single actor has all the answers.
3. Fostering international cooperation: Engaging proactively with countries considering similar legislation and with supplier markets to anticipate, prevent, and address unintended negative impacts, while promoting collaborative approaches to implementation.
The keynote concluded with a call to view the transposition of the CSDDD not merely as a legal exercise, but as a unique opportunity to generate positive change for people and the environment through cooperation, capacity-building, and sustained stakeholder engagement.
The speaker also called on policymakers, European and international institutions, funders, and other organisations to provide greater support (including financial and institutional backing) for collaborative initiatives such as this workshop. Highlighting that the event had been organized largely through the voluntary contribution of time and expertise by the organizing team, the speaker stressed the importance of investing in spaces for dialogue, capacity-building, and peer learning among policymakers and other stakeholders.
The second keynote reflected on the evolution of the CSDDD over the past year, highlighting the significant political challenges it encountered during the Omnibus discussions and broader debates on EU competitiveness and deregulation. The keynote noted that the legislative process ultimately reaffirmed the centrality of the Directive’s risk-based approach, reflecting the constructive engagement of Member States, experts, and stakeholders and a shared understanding that effective HREDD must be grounded in the assessment and management of risks rather than a purely compliance-oriented exercise.
The keynote situated the CSDDD within a broader trajectory of mandatory HREDD legislation, building on earlier national initiatives such as the French Duty of Vigilance Law, the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act, and the Norwegian Transparency Act. The speaker argued that the CSDDD represents a major milestone by establishing a harmonized due diligence framework across the EU’s internal market and demonstrating the EU’s capacity to act as a global regulatory standard setter.
At the same time, the speaker stressed that the success of the CSDDD will now depend on thoughtful transposition that maintains its ambition, respects harmonization requirements, and strikes an appropriate balance between regulatory consistency and the effective protection of human rights.
A key theme of the keynote was the need for a nuanced discussion of so-called “gold-plating.” The speaker encouraged policymakers to carefully consider where additional measures may be appropriate to preserve existing legal protections, including the principle of non-regression in fundamental rights protection. From this perspective, transposition should seek not only to promote regulatory coherence but also to preserve and strengthen human rights safeguards.
The third keynote encouraged participants to view the current moment as an opportunity to shape the future of responsible business conduct. While welcoming the preservation of the CSDDD’s core risk-based and proportionate approach during the Omnibus negotiations, the speaker urged policymakers and stakeholders to focus on the opportunities for effective national implementation rather than the limitations of the final text.
A central message was that the CSDDD should not be understood in isolation but as part of a broader international framework, particularly the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). The speaker emphasised that the Directive draws on these international standards and that national implementation should be interpreted consistently with them, promoting legal coherence and reducing the risk of fragmented due diligence regimes.
The keynote also highlighted the important role of Member States in supporting implementation and raising awareness of the Directive’s broader implications. The speaker cautioned against viewing the CSDDD as relevant only to companies formally within its scope, noting that due diligence expectations are likely to influence business practices throughout value chains. Similarly, recent amendments to the Directive should not be interpreted as diminishing the importance of corporate action on climate-related impacts or other evolving international standards.
Finally, the keynote stressed that effective implementation requires supporting not only businesses and SMEs but also rights-holders, civil society organisations, and other stakeholders who play an essential role in identifying risks, informing due diligence processes, and facilitating access to remedy. Meaningful stakeholder engagement was presented as both a safeguard for affected communities and a practical tool for helping businesses better understand and address human rights and environmental impacts.
The call for greater support for civil society organisations (CSOs) resonated strongly throughout the workshop and was echoed in several discussions. Participants emphasised the essential role of CSOs in the effective implementation of the CSDDD, including documenting human rights and environmental impacts, engaging with affected stakeholders, and supporting accountability and access to remedy. At the same time, concerns were raised that the current geopolitical context and reductions in funding from the United States and other donors have placed many organisations under significant financial pressure. Recognising the need to preserve their independence and neutrality, participants called on policymakers, European and international institutions, and other public actors to explore sustainable funding mechanisms, including independently governed or pooled financing models, to strengthen the long-term capacity of civil society and safeguard the expertise and stakeholder engagement essential to effective HREDD frameworks.
Perspectives from Policymakers on CSDDD Transposition
The first session of the workshop gave the floor to policymakers to exchange experiences and reflections on the transposition of the CSDDD. Discussions focused on the current state of national transposition processes, key implementation challenges, and the forms of support and cooperation needed to ensure effective implementation.
A clear finding from the discussion was that Member States are at significantly different stages of preparation. While some jurisdictions have already developed draft legislative proposals and benefited from experience under existing national HREDD legislation, others remain at an early stage of analysis and institutional planning. Despite these differences, participants reported a high degree of convergence around the core challenges that lie ahead.
A recurring theme was the importance of maintaining coherence between the CSDDD and the growing body of related EU legislation, including sustainability reporting, sector-specific due diligence requirements, sustainable finance measures, and responsible business conduct frameworks. Participants noted that the need to transpose multiple EU instruments within a relatively short timeframe raises important sequencing and coordination challenges, with Member States adopting different approaches. Policymakers stressed the importance of avoiding fragmented implementation and highlighted the value of further European-level guidance to promote consistency across Member States. The discussion also underscored the need to align national implementation with international standards, particularly the UNGPs and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (OECD Guidelines).
Another major area of discussion concerned supervisory arrangements. Many participants identified the designation and resourcing of national supervisory authorities as a critical implementation challenge. Questions were raised regarding the appropriate institutional home for supervision, the degree of independence required, coordination between different national authorities, and mechanisms for cooperation among supervisory bodies across the European Union. The discussion emphasised that effective supervision would require both sufficient resources and a harmonized approach across jurisdictions.
Participants also stressed the importance of stakeholder engagement and awareness-raising throughout both the transposition process and the broader implementation of HREDD. Several jurisdictions reported ongoing efforts to engage businesses, civil society organisations, academics, and other stakeholders through consultations, workshops, and advisory groups. Particular emphasis was placed on the need to communicate that due diligence is a continuous, risk-based process rather than a compliance or “tick-box” exercise. Policymakers highlighted the importance of reaching senior management and boards of companies, given their central role in decision making and corporate governance.
A further topic of discussion was the practical implementation of HREDD by companies. Contributors observed that experiences from existing national legislation demonstrate the risks of overly procedural approaches that focus primarily on documentation and formal compliance. Several examples were shared illustrating how companies may invest significant resources in extensive questionnaires, reporting exercises, or digital compliance tools without necessarily improving the effectiveness of risk identification and mitigation. The discussion highlighted the need to keep implementation focused on outcomes, meaningful risk assessment, root-cause analysis, and stakeholder engagement.
The role of guidance emerged as a priority. Participants expressed strong support for comprehensive European Commission guidance, particularly on issues such as the interpretation of key concepts, implementation in complex operating environments, interaction with international standards, stakeholder engagement, supervisory cooperation and proactive engagement with and support for third countries. There was broad agreement that practical guidance would be essential both for companies (including SMEs indirectly impacted by the CSDDD) and for national authorities responsible for implementation and enforcement.
The discussion also underscored the importance of collaboration among Member States. Participants highlighted the value of informal exchanges, peer learning, and the sharing of emerging practices during the transposition process. Given the novelty and complexity of the CSDDD, policymakers emphasised that cross-border cooperation would be critical to achieving coherent implementation and reducing uncertainty for businesses and stakeholders alike.
Ensuring laws are effectively applied and supported in practice
The discussion focused on how to ensure that HREDD laws deliver meaningful outcomes in practice. Participants stressed that legislation alone will not drive behavioural change unless it is supported by effective supervision, practical guidance, stakeholder engagement mechanisms, and adequate support for companies and affected stakeholders. Successful implementation therefore requires moving beyond formal compliance towards a risk-based approach that fosters lasting
changes in business conduct.
Participants identified three interdependent pillars of effective implementation and enforcement:
1. supervisory authorities with appropriate powers, resources, and expertise;
2. guidance, support, capacity-building and tools to help companies operationalise HREDD; and
3. targeted support measures for SMEs and other actors across global value chains.
Supervisory Authorities: mandate, resources, and enforcement powers
The discussion stressed that effective supervision should focus on whether and how companies identify, prioritise, prevent, mitigate and remediate adverse impacts, rather than simply verifying the existence of policies, procedures, and reports. There was concern that authorities could become ‘document auditors’ rather than regulators focused on actual risk reduction and outcomes. The mandate of supervisory authorities should therefore be broad enough to assess the quality and effectiveness of due diligence processes.
Participants discussed the relative merits of preventive and sanctions-based approaches. Many favoured a model that combines proactive engagement and capacity-building with the ability to investigate and sanction serious non-compliance. Effective enforcement was viewed as requiring a balance between supporting companies in improving their practices and maintaining credible enforcement powers where companies fail to engage. Questions were also raised regarding the relationship between administrative supervision, civil liability mechanisms and, in some jurisdictions, broader accountability frameworks inspired by ‘failure to prevent’ approaches. It was noted that enforcement should be viewed as part of a broader system that includes access to remedy and judicial mechanisms, rather than relying solely on administrative oversight.
Supervisory authorities require expertise in human rights, environmental protection, stakeholder engagement, value chains, and sector-specific risks, as well as an understanding of geographic and conflict-related contexts. Concerns were expressed regarding the risk of assigning broad mandates to authorities without providing corresponding resources or specialist expertise. Several participants noted that effective implementation will depend heavily on building institutional capacity and ensuring that supervisory authorities have access to multidisciplinary expertise.
The discussion also highlighted the importance of maintaining institutional independence while ensuring meaningful engagement with external experts, national human rights institutions, civil society organisations, trade unions, and other stakeholders. Cooperation and information-sharing between supervisory authorities and external actors were considered essential for identifying risks and understanding real-world impacts.
Guidance, Support, Capacity-Building and Tools
A recurring theme was the importance of preserving the risk-based logic of due diligence as established by the UNGPs. It was stressed that effective implementation requires practical support, guidance, and capacity-building to help companies translate legal obligations into operational processes, particularly in areas such as risk prioritisation, but also value chain mapping, stakeholder engagement, remediation planning, and decision-making in complex supply chains. Due diligence should focus on the most severe risks to people and the environment, with prioritisation methodologies grounded in severity as the primary criterion and likelihood as a secondary consideration. At the same time, prioritisation should be understood as a means of sequencing action rather than permanently excluding lower-priority impacts, with companies remaining responsible for addressing all identified risks over time. Participants also cautioned against approaches that prioritise easily measurable risks at the expense of more severe impacts that may be harder to assess. There was broad agreement that implementation guidance should provide sufficient legal certainty while remaining flexible enough to accommodate different sectors, business models, and risk contexts, as overly prescriptive approaches could encourage formalistic compliance while insufficient guidance could create uncertainty and inconsistent implementation.
Several participants highlighted the growing use of traceability systems, risk databases, digital tools, and AI-enabled monitoring systems. While these tools may help companies identify and assess risks, caution was expressed regarding excessive reliance on abstract scoring systems and automated assessments. Effective due diligence requires context-specific analysis and informed judgement rather than mechanical application of risk indicators.
The importance of interoperability with existing frameworks was also emphasised. Guidance should be aligned with the UNGPs, OECD Guidelines, reporting obligations, and sector-specific regulatory regimes to reduce duplication and promote regulatory coherence.
The discussion also highlighted the value of collaborative approaches to responsible business conduct as a means of supporting effective and proportionate implementation of HREDD. Existing initiatives, such as the German Sustainable Agricultural Supply Chains Initiative Due Diligence Fund (DDF), commissioned by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), and the Dutch Subsidy Programme for Responsible Business (SPVO), were cited as examples of good practice. By combining financial support, capacity-building, and multi-stakeholder partnerships, these initiatives help strengthen due diligence in global value chains and could serve as useful models for similar funding and support mechanisms in other Member States.
It was also stressed that meaningful stakeholder engagement should not be treated as a procedural requirement but as an essential tool for understanding impacts, identifying risks, designing effective responses, and evaluating outcomes. The discussion highlighted concerns that recent legislative amendments could encourage a narrower interpretation of stakeholder engagement obligations. Participants argued that implementation and guidance should continue to promote
broad engagement with affected individuals, communities, workers, CSOs, and other relevant stakeholders, in line with international standards and good practices.
Grievance mechanisms were also discussed as important tools for the early identification of risks and impacts. There was broad agreement that such mechanisms should not be reduced to procedural reporting channels but should function as effective means of identifying problems, facilitating dialogue, and enabling remediation. In this regard, the discussion highlighted the need for practical guidance, capacity-building, and adequate support to help companies and other actors establish and operate grievance mechanisms that are accessible, effective, and aligned with international standards. Grievance mechanisms, supervisory authorities, and judicial remedies were viewed as complementary elements of a broader remedy ecosystem, each playing a distinct but interconnected role in preventing and addressing adverse impacts.
Support for SMEs and Supply Chain Actors: Tailoring capacity-building measures to ensure smaller actors are not left behind
Although only a limited number of companies fall directly within the scope of HREDD legislation, participants highlighted that its effects extend throughout global value chains, creating increasing expectations for many SMEs from customers, investors, and business partners.
A key concern was the structural imbalance between large companies and smaller suppliers, which often face significant HREDD demands without equivalent bargaining power, resources, or expertise. Participants cautioned against approaches that simply transfer due diligence obligations and costs downstream through contractual requirements, as has been observed in some jurisdictions with existing HREDD legislation.
Instead, implementation should prioritise capacity-building and practical support for SMEs and other value chain actors. The discussion highlighted the importance of responsible contracting and purchasing practices, including the use of instruments such as the European Model Clauses for Responsible and Sustainable Supply Chains, as well as collaborative approaches such as pooled audits, to foster more equitable business relationships and avoid the transfer of due diligence burdens downstream. At the same time, policymakers were encouraged to complement these efforts through support measures such as helpdesks, sector-specific guidance, technical assistance programmes, and other capacity-building initiatives. There was also broad support for encouraging larger companies to play a more active role in strengthening supplier capacity and promoting responsible purchasing practices, rather than externalising compliance costs. Particular attention was given to SMEs in third countries, especially in the Global South, which may face the greatest due diligence expectations while having the least access to resources and support.
It was noted that a range of practical guidance and support initiatives have already been developed to assist SMEs in implementing HREDD and could serve as useful models or reference points for future EU and national guidance. One example mentioned during the workshop is the Business and Human Rights Due Diligence Toolbox developed by the Belgian Federal Institute for Sustainable Development with the support of the Council of Europe and recently updated. The toolbox provides structured, step-by-step guidance to help companies operationalise due diligence processes through practical resources, including templates, checklists, and illustrative examples. A different but complementary approach can be found in Portugal, where a national ESG Strategy for Exporting SMEs was developed to help smaller businesses prepare for emerging sustainability requirements in international markets. The discussion also highlighted the potential of collaborative approaches to responsible business conduct to address structural challenges faced by SMEs, particularly limited leverage and resource constraints. Public support schemes and capacity-building initiatives that encourage cooperation among companies, suppliers, civil society, and other stakeholders were identified as important tools for promoting more effective and proportionate implementation of HREDD. Examples of good practice include the coaching programmes funded by the Belgium Agency for International Cooperation in various producer countries to support SMEs and business supporting organisations in strengthening their HREDD practices and equip them with practical tools to better identify, prevent and mitigate risks linked to their activities and value chains. Participants highlighted these initiatives as useful examples of how practical guidance and targeted capacity-building measures can support SMEs in navigating evolving HREDD expectations and could inform future implementation efforts.
Note that materials and practical resources referenced by experts during the morning session are listed in the annex below.
Building on the morning exchanges, the afternoon sessions adopted a more interactive format designed to facilitate peer learning and in-depth discussion of practical implementation challenges. The topics were identified by policymakers and other stakeholders as priority areas requiring further reflection and exchange of experiences. Discussions focused on emerging good practices, practical solutions, and policy recommendations to support the effective and coherent implementation of the CSDDD across Member States.
Discussions focused in particular on:
(i) company practice around risk prioritisation;
(ii) the design and operation of effective supervisory authorities;
(iii) information gathering across value chains;
(iv) civil liability and access to remedy;
(v) regulatory coherence across EU and national legal frameworks; and
(vi) the role of multi-stakeholder initiatives, voluntary sustainability standards, and certification schemes in supporting HREDD implementation.
Company Practice around Prioritisation
A central theme of the discussion was the practical application of the risk-based approach to HREDD. While the importance of prioritising the most severe risks is well established under international standards, participants noted that its operationalisation remains challenging. In particular, the discussion explored the appropriate unit of analysis for risk assessments, suggesting that products or raw materials may often provide a more coherent basis for prioritisation than individual suppliers, while recognising that the most appropriate approach may vary depending on the sector and context.
Meaningful stakeholder engagement was identified as an essential component of risk prioritisation and should inform decisions from an early stage. At the same time, participants recognised the practical challenges associated with engaging relevant stakeholders and highlighted the need for practical guidance and accessible risk information to facilitate more effective engagement.
Finally, the discussion stressed that effective due diligence depends on embedding risk awareness across business functions rather than concentrating responsibility within specialised compliance teams or external advisers. Building internal capacity and fostering a culture of continuous learning were seen as critical to ensuring that HREDD becomes an integral part of business decision-making and contributes to meaningful outcomes in practice.
Designing Effective Supervisory Authorities
Participants emphasised that well-resourced, independent, and appropriately empowered supervisory authorities are essential to the effective implementation of HREDD legislation. A recurring theme was the need to ensure sufficient financial and human resources. A fee-based funding model where companies in scope pay fees to offset supervisory costs was presented as one option. This approach, used for example by Belgium’s FSMA, could reduce start-up costs when embedding authorities within existing independent bodies. Another suggestion was to embed new authorities within existing bodies to reduce start-up costs.
The independence of supervisory authorities was identified as a fundamental prerequisite for effective oversight. Contributors stressed the importance of safeguarding authorities from both political and corporate influence through appropriate institutional and governance arrangements, in line with EU independence requirements. Suggested measures included ensuring a clear separation between supervisory and capacity-building functions, using staff rotation to maintain appropriate distance from regulated entities, and establishing authorities outside ministerial technical supervision or within existing independent bodies with proven expertise and strong institutional safeguards.
Advisory structures bringing together national and international experts were viewed as valuable mechanisms for building expertise, provided that adequate safeguards are in place to prevent regulatory capture and that participation is supported through appropriate resources and sustainable engagement mechanisms. In this regard, national human rights institutions were identified as potential contributors to both capacity-building and rights-holder perspectives.
A further theme was the importance of combining capacity-building with effective enforcement. Contributors highlighted the value of preventative and learning-oriented approaches that support companies in improving their HREDD practices while maintaining credible sanctioning powers for serious or persistent non-compliance. Benchmarking company practices and facilitating the exchange of good practices were identified as key elements of a learning-oriented approach to supervision, helping to gradually raise standards and promote continuous
improvement.
Finally, effective cooperation between supervisory authorities was seen as critical to ensuring coherent implementation across the growing body of EU sustainability legislation. The discussion emphasised the need for coordination and information-sharing between authorities responsible for different regulatory frameworks, as well as the development of practical mechanisms to reduce duplication, promote consistency, and provide greater legal certainty for companies and other stakeholders.
Information Gathering Across Value Chain
Stakeholders emphasised that effective HREDD must be balanced with minimizing administrative burdens on suppliers, particularly SMEs. Rather than relying on repetitive, buyer-specific questionnaires, due diligence should be based on proportionate and risk-based information requests, accepting equivalent forms of existing data and promoting shared or standardized datasets where appropriate. Collaborative mechanisms such as sectoral initiatives, supplier-led business associations, shared data platforms, and common minimum datasets, could help suppliers provide information once and share it with multiple buyers while retaining control over their data.
A recurring theme was that the main challenge is not necessarily the volume of information requests, but the lack of support provided to suppliers. Evidence from existing due diligence regimes suggests that SMEs are often expected to meet extensive requirements without adequate technical, financial, or contractual assistance from buyers. Participants therefore stressed that buyers should provide reasonable support and that the costs of generating due diligence information should be shared proportionately among supply chain actors.
The discussion also highlighted the importance of preserving flexibility in regulatory guidance. Rather than prescribing rigid information requirements, guidance should encourage collaborative approaches tailored to sectoral and regional contexts, with governments playing a facilitating role through coordination, capacity building, research funding, and support for shared infrastructure.
Finally, responsible contractual practices were identified as a key element of effective due diligence. In line with the collaborative spirit of the CSDDD, an inability to provide requested information should not automatically trigger contractual penalties or termination. Instead, suppliers and buyers should engage in a structured process to identify alternative forms of evidence, provide necessary support, and work towards compliance before resorting to economic sanctions. Overall, stakeholders stressed that collaborative, supportive, and proportionate approaches are more likely to achieve effective due diligence while maintaining resilient and sustainable supply chain relationships.
Civil Liability and Access to Justice
A central theme of the discussion was the importance of ensuring effective access to remedy through civil liability while maintaining legal certainty and coherence across Member States. Contributors noted that recent amendments to the CSDDD’s civil liability framework, in particular the removal of the EU-harmonised civil liability standard, have increased the significance of national implementation choices and may lead to greater divergence between national legal regimes. At the same time, it was emphasised that the Directive continues to require effective remediation. Article 12 and other provisions maintain obligations to address adverse impacts where companies have caused or contributed to them. Participants therefore highlighted the importance of ensuring that national legal systems provide clear and effective pathways to remedy and that civil liability mechanisms operate coherently alongside other elements of the broader remedy ecosystem. The discussion also noted that courts are increasingly drawing on international standards, including the UNGPs and the OECD Guidelines, when interpreting HREDD obligations, illustrating the dynamic interaction between legislation, judicial practice, and evolving international norms.
Recent studies have highlighted a high degree of fragmentation among Member States, with significant differences between national legal regimes that may not all provide equally effective pathways to remedy. It was observed that divergent approaches to applicable law, liability standards, and procedural rules create uncertainty for both companies and affected stakeholders. Concerns were also raised that fragmented legal frameworks may disproportionately disadvantage claimants, who often face significant practical and financial barriers in pursuing remedies across multiple jurisdictions and may lack access to adequate legal and institutional support when facing well-resourced corporate defendants. In this regard, participants emphasised the importance of ensuring effective legal aid and other support mechanisms for rights-holders, while promoting greater coherence and harmonisation across Member States, including through clearer choice-of law rules and other measures that could reduce unnecessary complexity and strengthen access to remedy.
Participants also referred to recent judicial developments as potential sources of guidance for national implementation. In particular, the recent French Yves Rocher decision, in which the French Duty of Vigilance Law was treated as an overriding mandatory provision, that is, a rule that is regarded as crucial by a country for safeguarding its public interest to such an extent that it applies irrespective of the law otherwise applicable to the dispute, was highlighted as an example of good practice. It was suggested that policymakers could usefully embed similar approaches in their national transposition measures, particularly with a view to strengthening legal certainty and access to remedy in cross-border cases.
Finally, European guidance, enhanced cooperation between Member States, and continued alignment with international standards were identified as potential means of supporting more effective and consistent access to remedy while reducing unnecessary complexity for both rights holders and businesses.
Regulatory Coherence
A central theme of the discussion was the importance of promoting regulatory coherence across the growing body of EU and national legislation relating to HREDD. Participants emphasised that coherence should simplify implementation and reduce unnecessary burdens on companies without weakening substantive standards, enabling businesses to develop integrated due diligence systems that can support compliance across multiple regulatory frameworks.
National Action Plans (NAPs) on Business and Human Rights were highlighted as valuable tools for promoting such coherence. Beyond their strategic function, NAPs can serve as practical coordination mechanisms by mapping existing and emerging due diligence obligations, clarifying the responsibilities of public authorities, and supporting a more consistent approach to implementation across different policy areas.
Contributors stressed the need for greater alignment between the CSDDD and other EU instruments containing due diligence, reporting, traceability, and supply-chain requirements, as well as with related areas of domestic regulation, including labour, environmental, consumer, and public procurement law. Regulatory coherence should also extend to the EU’s external action and partnerships with third countries, helping to ensure that human rights and environmental standards are consistently reflected across trade, investment, development cooperation, and broader economic policies.
The discussion also highlighted the value of peer learning and the exchange of good practices among Member States as a means of reducing fragmentation and promoting more consistent implementation of due diligence-related obligations across the EU. National initiatives and innovative approaches were particularly welcomed as potential models for other jurisdictions. Participants further emphasised the need for practical and sector-specific guidance at the European level to help companies understand how different regulatory frameworks interact and to support effective, risk-based implementation of HREDD in practice.
Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives, Voluntary Sustainability Standards, and Certification Schemes
The discussion explored the evolving role of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs), voluntary sustainability standards (VSS), and certification schemes, including ISO standards, in supporting the implementation of the CSDDD. Participants broadly agreed that these instruments can play an important role in helping companies identify, assess, and address sustainability risks across their operations and value chains. At the same time, they emphasised that such mechanisms can be valuable when used as complementary governance mechanisms that support, but do not replace, a company’s own due diligence responsibilities.
A recurring theme was the distinction between formal compliance and meaningful action. While standards and certification schemes can provide practical tools, data, and governance structures, certification alone should not be treated as evidence of compliance with due diligence obligations. Effective HREDD requires companies to remain accountable for identifying, preventing, mitigating, and addressing adverse impacts through ongoing risk assessment and meaningful stakeholder engagement.
The discussion also highlighted the importance of ensuring the credibility of MSIs, VSS, and certification schemes. Transparency, independent verification, meaningful stakeholder participation, robust monitoring, and effective governance were identified as key elements of credible systems. Given the growing number of standards and initiatives, participants emphasised the potential value of recognition or benchmarking mechanisms to help distinguish credible schemes and support both companies and supervisory authorities in assessing their relevance for HREDD implementation.
Finally, contributors noted that the proliferation of overlapping standards and reporting requirements can create particular challenges for SMEs and suppliers by increasing administrative burdens and compliance costs. Greater coordination between initiatives, together with practical guidance and potential European recognition frameworks, could help reduce unnecessary complexity while preserving the benefits that collaborative and voluntary approaches can bring to effective, risk-based implementation of HREDD.
Final Key Takeaways from Policymakers
Drawing on the discussions throughout the workshop, several overarching priorities emerged for the effective transposition and implementation of the CSDDD:
1. Preserve the risk-based approach. National implementation should remain firmly grounded in the UNGPs and the OECD Guidelines, focusing on the identification, prevention, mitigation, and remediation, with a prioritization of the most salient human rights and environmental risks.
2. Prioritise practical implementation. Effective HREDD requires more than legislative transposition. Practical guidance, capacity-building, and support measures should help companies and other stakeholders translate legal obligations into operational processes.
3. Strengthen supervisory ecosystems. Independent, well-resourced, and appropriately empowered supervisory authorities are essential for effective implementation. Supervision should combine preventative and learning-oriented approaches with credible enforcement powers.
4. Support SMEs and value chain actors. Implementation should avoid simply transferring compliance costs downstream and instead promote responsible business relationships, targeted capacity-building, technical assistance, and collaborative support mechanisms, particularly for SMEs and actors in the Global South.
5. Ensure meaningful stakeholder engagement. Stakeholder engagement should be treated as a core element of effective due diligence and should involve affected individuals, workers, communities, civil society organisations, and other relevant actors throughout the HREDD process.
6. Promote effective access to remedy. National implementation should ensure that civil liability, grievance mechanisms, supervisory oversight, and judicial remedies operate as complementary elements of a broader remedy ecosystem, while reducing unnecessary legal fragmentation and barriers to justice.
7. Enhance regulatory coherence. Transposition should be coordinated with other relevant EU and national legislation and aligned with international standards. National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights, peer learning among Member States, and European-level guidance can support greater consistency and reduce unnecessary complexity.
8. Encourage collaborative approaches to implementation. Multi-stakeholder initiatives, voluntary sustainability standards, certification schemes, and collaborative funding mechanisms can support effective HREDD, provided they complement rather than replace companies’ own due diligence responsibilities.
9. Invest in guidance, institutions, and partnerships. Sustained financial and institutional support for supervisory authorities, civil society organisations, businesses, and collaborative initiatives will be critical to building the broader ecosystem necessary for effective implementation.
10. View transposition as an opportunity for positive change. The implementation of the CSDDD should not be regarded solely as a legal or compliance exercise, but as an opportunity to strengthen responsible business conduct, promote sustainable economic development, and deliver meaningful benefits for people, the environment, and businesses.
Published June 2026.
Authors: Claire Bright, Jasmine Elliott, Alina Ganser, Sofia Gonzalez De Aguinaga, May Hylander, Huib Hyse, Axel Marx, Kari Otteburn, Irene Pietropaoli, Andreas Rühmkorf, and Olena Uvarova.
The NOVA Centre on Business, Human Rights and the Environment (BHRE), an innovative and multidisciplinary academic centre dedicated to promoting responsible and sustainable business conduct. Its mission is to uphold respect for human rights, decent work and environmental standards throughout global value chains.
The British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL), an independent research organisation advancing the understanding of international and comparative law and promotes the rule of law in international affairs.
The Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, an interdisciplinary research centre within the Humanities and Social Sciences Group at KU Leuven. Founded in 2007, it conducts innovative and interdisciplinary research on global governance and related policy challenges. The Centre is one of the partners of the Mediate project which examines four central questions around the role of intermediaries in complying with and shaping new sustainability due diligence rules: what are the new due diligence rules, who helps companies, what is the impact in practice and what do we learn from intermediaries. The project is by the Flemish Fund for Scientific Research (FWO) under its Strategic Basic Research Funding (SBO): FWO-SBO Number S002725N.
HIVA Research Institute for Work and Society: A core element of HIVA-KU Leuven’s mission is dedicated to furthering knowledge about the interplay of labour issues with socio-economic and ecological development. The institute conducts both basic research and field work on specific supply chains, as policy and practice oriented assignments for governmental actors, civil society and other stakeholders. HIVA coordinates the Mediate project, focusing on the role of intermediaries in complying with and shaping new sustainability due diligence rules. HIVA’s contribution to Mediate relates to the role of trade unions, for-profit intermediaries, and public buyers, while also coordinating valorisation activities.
Westfälische Hochschule (WH): The Westfälische Hochschule (WH), a forward‑looking University of Applied Sciences, integrates engineering, economics and social sciences to promote responsible usiness conduct, decent work and environmental stewardship across global value chains. Its mission is to turn research into sustainable impact and societal transformation globally.
Global Rights Compliance (GRC), an international law foundation dedicated to promoting accountability and strengthening justice systems through the application of international law. Through its workstream on business and human rights, GRC is committed to advancing corporate accountability and meaningful access to justice for individuals and communities affected by business-related human rights harms.
The workshop was organised with the financial support of the HIVA Research Institute for Work and Society, Westfälische Hochschule (WH), the law firm PLMJ CEDIS, and the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT).
Annex: Selected Resources and Initiatives for CSDDD Transposition and Implementation
The workshop identified a number of practical resources, studies, tools, and examples of good practice that may support policymakers in the transposition and implementation of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). The selection below reflects materials discussed during the workshop and is intended as a non-exhaustive reference for policymakers and other stakeholders.
Practical Guidance for Companies and SMEs
A range of practical tools have been developed to support companies, particularly SMEs, in implementing HREDD:
● Business & Human Rights Toolbox (Belgian Federal Institute for Sustainable Development, 2025): Practical guidance on due diligence, reporting, grievance mechanisms, and access to remedy, including self-assessment tools.
● Fairtrade, Implementing Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence (HREDD): A Guide for Fairtrade Certified Traders (2024): Practical guidance for traders on implementing HREDD throughout supply chains.
● The SME Compass: An online platform providing practical tools for managing sustainable supply chains and implementing due diligence requirements.
Funding and Capacity-Building Initiatives
Participants highlighted funding schemes that combine financial support, capacity-building, and multi-stakeholder partnerships, such as:
● The German Sustainable Agricultural Supply Chains Initiative (SASI) Due Diligence Fund: which supports collaborative projects between companies, suppliers, and local organisations to strengthen human rights and environmental due diligence in global agricultural supply chains. Through a co-funding model, the initiative promotes scalable and practical solutions that support compliance with emerging due diligence legislation while fostering shared responsibility across value chains.
● The Dutch Subsidy Programme for Responsible Business SPVO: which provides financial support for partnerships between Dutch companies, local suppliers, and civil society organisations to improve social and environmental sustainability in international value chains. The programme promotes collaborative due diligence, capacity-building, and practical pilot projects that can be replicated across sectors and jurisdictions.
Studies and Legal Analysis
Several studies and legal analyses were identified as useful resources for policymakers:
● Claire Bright, Kari Otteburn, Huib Huyse and Axel Marx, Belgian Study on the Operational Implementation and Transposition of the CSDDD (contact the authors for more information).
● Danish Institute for Human Rights, Making the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive Work for People (2026);
● European Coalition for Corporate Justice, From Ambition to Erosion: How Omnibus I Rolls back the CSDDD (2026);
● Frank Bold and ClientEarth, Sustainability Due Diligence after the Omnibus: Legal Implications for the CSDDD (2026);
● NomoGaia Resources on: ○ company reporting under mandatory HREDD legislation;
○ corporate grievance mechanisms and effective remedy; and
○ practical recommendations for implementation and enforcement.
○ Practical Tools and Guidance;
● The Mediate project which examines four central questions around the role of intermediaries in complying with and shaping new sustainability due diligence rules: what are the new due diligence rules, who helps companies, what is the impact in practice and what do we learn from intermediaries. The project is by the Flemish Fund for Scientific Research (FWO) under its Strategic Basic Research Funding (SBO): FWO-SBO Number S002725N.
● The Responsible Contracting Project’s practical resources to support responsible contracting practices, including:
○ Core Principles for Responsible Contracting;
○ The RCP Toolkit;
○ Commentary on the CSDDD and contracting after the Omnibus reforms; and
○ The European Model Clauses for Responsible and Sustainable Supply Chains.
Academic Research
Articles:
● Mandatory Due Diligence Legislation
○ Claire Bright and Anaïs Tobalagba, “Human Rights Due Diligence: Lessons Learnt from Legislative Experiences in France, Germany and Norway”, in Paula Câmara, Mercados Financeiros e Sustentabilidade, Almedina, 2026, 185-206, at claire.bright@novalaw.unl.pt for a copy. This article examines the lessons learned from the legislative experiences with mandatory HREDD in France, Germany, and Norway and their implications for the design and implementation of future due
diligence
● Human Rights Due Diligence Practice legislation.
○ Harrison, J. (2026). Human rights due diligence: Lessons from a regulatory intermediary perspective. Netherlands Quarterly of
Human Rights, https://doi.org/10.1177/09240519261433385: The article examines the practical operation of human rights due diligence and the role of regulatory intermediaries, highlighting challenges relating to regulatory capture, cost allocation, and
professional standards.
○ Marx, A. & K. Otteburn (2026). How Due Diligence Transforms Private Sustainability Governance: The Case of the Global Organic Textile Standard. Global Policy. This paper looks at the interaction between due diligence requirements and multi stakeholder initiatives and shows the importance of alignment frameworks.
○ Marx. A. (2026). Withering Sustainability? The rise (and fall?) of sustainability due diligence. Journal of International Business Policy. This essay discusses some of the issues related to the contestation of the CSDDD and due diligence in general.
○ Dzneladze, E. & A. Marx (2025) Human Rights Due Diligence and Access to Remedy. A comparative analysis of twenty-six due diligence laws and proposals. in Brazilian Journal of International Law, 22, 1, pp. 168-189. This paper compares 26 due diligence measures and their provisions on access to remedy.
○ Marx, A. (2025) The European Union’s Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence: An Institutional Design Effectiveness Analysis. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. This paper provides a comparative institutional design analysis of several due diligence measures with a specific focus on CSDDD. Important to note that this paper was written before Omnibus.
● Corporate Grievance Mechanisms
○ James Harrison, Mark Wielga, Margarita Parejo, (2024) In Search of Effective Corporate Grievance Mechanisms: Can Mandatory Due Diligence Laws be a Progressive Force?, Journal of Human Rights Practice, Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages
819–835, https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huae011: The article explores the role of corporate grievance mechanisms under mandatory due diligence legislation and identifies conditions necessary for these mechanisms to provide effective access to
remedy.
● Corporate Disclosure
○ James Harrison (University of Warwick) and Mark Wielga (Nomogaia), Mandatory human rights due diligence and corporate disclosure: Lessons from France, Germany and Norway, Article currently under review. Email James Harrison at J.Harrison.3@warwick.ac.uk for a copy: comparative research on France, Germany, and Norway highlights the importance of disclosure requirements for effective supervision and identifies lessons for future HREDD legislation.
Blog posts:
● Claire Bright, The experiences of Germany and Norway on mHREDD legislation, NOVA BHRE Blog, 12 July 2025
● Daniel Schönfelder, Lessons learned from Germany with impressions from Norway: Recommendations regarding the risk-based approach, SME suppliers, and civil liability for the Omnibus based on experiences from the implementation of the LkSG, Initiative Lieferkettengesetz (2025);
● Daniel Schönfelder and Michaela Streibelt, Rights as Usual, Five Years of the German Supply Chain Act – Successes and Potentials for Improvement (2026).
● Nicola Bonucci, Axel Marx and Martijn Scheltema, Non-paper: Observations on effective public supervision under the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), NOVA BHRE Blog, 15 June 2026.
Podcasts:
● The new Swiss Legislative Proposal on Mandatory Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence, NOVA BHRE Podcasts, June 2026
● The Yves Rocher Case and its Implications for the French Duty of Vigilance Law and Beyond, NOVA BHRE Podcasts, May 2026.
● Corporate Sustainability in the Client-Supplier Relationship: Insights from the 2025 Responsible Purchasing Barometer, NOVA BHRE Podcasts, March 2026.
● Lessons Learned from HREDD Practices in India and Germany, NOVA BHRE Podcasts, February 2026.
● Human Rights and Competitiveness; Reframing the Business Case for Human Rights, NOVA BHRE Podcasts, February 2026.
International Organisations and Policy Resources
Participants referred to a range of publications and policy resources from international organisations relevant to CSDDD implementation, including:
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
● business and human rights:
○ A Human Rights Approach to Due Diligence: Reflections on key principles (2025);
○ Fundamental Rights in corporate sustainability and due diligence | European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (ongoing project with two reports coming up this year)
● environmental and social sustainability:
○ Opinion on Draft Simplified European Sustainability Reporting Standards (2026);
● labour exploitation:
○ How workplace inspectors can protect third-country workers’ rights (2024);
○ Detecting and addressing labour exploitation – A guide for labour inspectors (2025)
● climate change:
○ Climate change – ECtHR and CJEU Case-Law (2025)
○ Towards a fundamental rights-compliant European Green Deal (2025)
○ Fundamental rights and housing in the EU’s climate and energy transition (2026);
● greenwashing;
○ Enforcing consumer rights to combat greenwashing (2024)
● artificial intelligence:
○ Assessing High-risk Artificial Intelligence – Fundamental rights risks; and
● access to remedy:
○ Business and human rights – access to remedy (2020)
Shift Project
● Enforcement of Mandatory Due Diligence – Key Design Considerations for Administrative Supervision:
● Strengthening the S in ESG – Guardrails, Guidelines and thematic recommendations for designing better social indicators and metrics:
● From Policing to Partnership – Designing an EU Due Diligence Duty that delivers better outcomes:
● Signals of Seriousness for Human Rights Due Diligence- How can national regulators best assess the quality of a company’s HRDD efforts under potential EU legislation:
● Business Model Red Flags – 25 ways that companies could be wired to put people at risk
● Living Wage Accounting Model and Progress Tool – Providing the means to measure progress towards payment of a living wage for an organisation’s own employees, contractors, and workers in the first tier of their supply chain:
UNDP
● UNDP, Human Rights Due Diligence Handbook for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
(2023): Step-by-step guidance designed specifically for SMEs.
● UNDP, Human Rights vs. Competitiveness – A False Dilemma? Data on the Financial Implications of Corporate Human Rights Performance (2025).
UN Global Compact
● UN Global Compact Network France guide, Practical Guide: Businesses – Affected Communities: Adopting a Human Rights-based Approach for Meaningful Engagement and Effective Impact Management (2025).
● UN Global Compact Network Germany, What does effective human rights due diligence look like for SMEs? Five insights from practice (2022): Practical lessons from company experience.
Standards and Continuous Improvement Frameworks
ISO Standards and Management Systems
Participants noted that established management system standards, particularly ISO 9001 and ISO 14001, provide useful examples of continuous improvement frameworks that align with the risk based logic of the CSDDD. Related initiatives, such as PAS 24000 on social management systems, may also provide practical inspiration for implementation and supervision.
Suggested citation: C. Bright, J. Elliott, A. Ganser, S. Gonzalez De Aguinaga, M. Hylander, H. Hyse, A. Marx, K. Otteburn, I. Pietropaoli, A. Rühmkorf, and O. Uvarova., ‘Policy Brief – From Transposition to Transformation: Designing and Enforcing Effective National HREDD Laws’, NOVA BHRE Blog, 17 June 2026