EU CSDDD (Directive (EU) 2024/1760) Compared with CSRD

CSDDD requires companies to integrate due diligence into policies and risk management, identify and prioritize adverse human rights and environmental impacts, take appropriate preventive or corrective measures, enable complaints, provide remediation where relevant, monitor effectiveness, and maintain a climate transition plan.

CSRD requires companies to report sustainability information in accordance with the corporate sustainability reporting framework. It is a disclosure regime aimed at decision useful reporting, not a standalone operating duty to prevent or remediate impacts.

The connection matters most in the annual statement and climate plan. Article 16 of the CSDDD exempts companies already subject to CSRD sustainability reporting from the standalone CSDDD annual statement obligation.

Article 22 also deems companies that report a climate transition plan under the CSRD to have complied with the obligation to adopt such a plan under the CSDDD, although they still need to put it into effect and update it.

The efficient approach is to use one source of truth for scope, chain-of-activities mapping, material impact assessment, action plans, complaints, monitoring outputs, and climate plan data. Then map those records into the disclosure requirements under the CSRD and the conduct duties under the CSDDD.

What you should not do is let the reporting team build one view of impacts while procurement and compliance teams build another. That creates inconsistent claims and can become evidence against you.

The first common mistake is treating a strong CSRD report as proof that the company has done enough operational due diligence. The second is treating a supplier code and a few assessments as enough for CSRD quality disclosure.

A third mistake is ignoring timing. The CSDDD application calendar now follows the 2025 timing amendment, while the CSRD has its own phased reporting path and separate amendment activity.