--- title: "CSDDD FAQ: scope, dates, duties, liability, and evidence" canonical_url: "https://www.sorena.io/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/items/page/3" source_url: "https://www.sorena.io/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/items/page/3" author: "Sorena AI" description: "Practical answers on CSDDD scope, current application dates, chain of activities, due diligence duties, complaints, remediation, civil liability, climate plans, and evidence." published_at: "2026-05-09" updated_at: "2026-05-09" keywords: - "CSDDD FAQ" - "Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive" - "Directive (EU) 2024/1760" - "Directive (EU) 2025/794" - "CSDDD scope" - "chain of activities" - "due diligence" - "complaints procedure" - "remediation" - "civil liability" - "climate transition plan" - "CSDDD" - "EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive" - "complaints" --- **[SORENA](https://www.sorena.io/)** - AI-Powered GRC Platform [Home](https://www.sorena.io/) | [Solutions](https://www.sorena.io/solutions) | [Artifacts](https://www.sorena.io/artifacts) | [About Us](https://www.sorena.io/about-us) | [Contact](https://www.sorena.io/contact) | [Portal](https://app.sorena.io) --- # CSDDD FAQ: scope, dates, duties, liability, and evidence Practical answers on CSDDD scope, current application dates, chain of activities, due diligence duties, complaints, remediation, civil liability, climate plans, and evidence. *FAQ Hub* *CSDDD* *EU* ## CSDDD FAQ scope, duties, dates, liability, and evidence Answers to the practical questions teams ask when turning the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive into an operating program. Use this hub to separate legal scope, chain-of-activities mapping, adverse-impact controls, complaints, remediation, climate planning, and proof records. Directive (EU) 2024/1760 creates a due diligence framework for very large EU and non-EU companies. The practical work is to decide whether the entity is in scope, when national rules apply, which operations and business partners sit inside the chain of activities, which adverse impacts need action, and which evidence will prove the program works. ## Browse sub-FAQ modules ### [CSDDD chain of activities boundaries: upstream and downstream FAQ](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/chain-of-activities-boundaries.md) FAQ on how the CSDDD defines chain of activities boundaries for subsidiaries, direct and indirect business partners, upstream activities, downstream logistics, and evidence. - 6 items ### [CSDDD civil liability under Article 29: what companies should check](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/civil-liability.md) FAQ on CSDDD Article 29 civil liability: liability conditions, protected legal interests, causation, compensation, limitation periods, and evidence disclosure. - 4 items ### [CSDDD complaints and notifications FAQ](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/complaints.md) FAQ on Article 14 CSDDD complaint and notification mechanisms, who may complain, follow-up rights, confidentiality, retaliation, and evidence. - 7 items ### [CSDDD contractual assurances FAQ for Articles 10 and 11](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/contractual-assurances.md) How CSDDD Articles 10 and 11 use contractual assurances with business partners, verification, SME support, action plans, and suspension or termination escalation. - 4 items ### [CSDDD franchising and licensing scope FAQ](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/franchising.md) FAQ on when franchise or licensing networks can fall within Article 2 of the EU CSDDD, including royalties, turnover, EU and non-EU treatment, and evidence. - 6 items ### [CSDDD non-EU turnover threshold FAQ](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/non-eu-turnover.md) How non-EU companies should assess CSDDD scope using EU-generated turnover, group thresholds, authorised representative records, and competent authority evidence. - 5 items ### [CSDDD Omnibus timing changes after Directive (EU) 2025/794](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/omnibus-current-date-changes.md) FAQ answer on current CSDDD Article 37 dates after Directive (EU) 2025/794 and how to separate adopted timing changes from proposal-stage Omnibus simplification. - 4 items ### [CSDDD prevention vs mitigation: potential and actual adverse impacts](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/prevention-vs-mitigation.md) CSDDD FAQ on when to prevent or mitigate potential adverse impacts, when to end or minimise actual adverse impacts, and what evidence records to keep. - 6 items ### [CSDDD remediation FAQ: when companies must remedy adverse impacts](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/remediation.md) FAQ on CSDDD remediation: when Article 12 requires remedy, how complaints and stakeholder engagement affect the response, and what evidence to keep. - 5 items ### [CSDDD risk prioritisation FAQ: severity, likelihood, and evidence](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/risk-prioritisation.md) How to prioritise CSDDD adverse impacts when teams cannot address everything at once, using severity, likelihood, stakeholder evidence, and a reviewable rationale. - 4 items ### [CSDDD scope waves: current Article 37 dates and thresholds](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/scope-waves.md) FAQ on the current CSDDD phase-in after Directive (EU) 2025/794: 26 July 2028, 26 July 2029, Article 2 scope thresholds, and evidence to retain. - 5 items ### [CSDDD transition plans FAQ: Article 22 climate plan requirements](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/transition-plans.md) FAQ on CSDDD Article 22 climate transition plans: targets, decarbonisation levers, investment and funding, governance, CSRD overlap, and evidence records. - 6 items ### [How CSDDD overlaps with OECD, UNGP, and ILO standards](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/oecd-ungp-and-ilo-overlap.md) FAQ on how OECD responsible business conduct guidance, the UN Guiding Principles, and ILO labour standards inform CSDDD due diligence without being the same legal instrument. - 5 items Browse all indexed questions: [/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/items](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/items.md) ## All FAQ items *Page 3 of 4. Showing 20 of 67 items.* ### [When should suspension, termination, or disengagement be considered?](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/prevention-vs-mitigation.md#when-should-suspension-termination-or-disengagement-be-considered) *Module: [CSDDD prevention vs mitigation: potential and actual adverse impacts](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/prevention-vs-mitigation.md)* Articles 10 and 11 treat suspension or termination as last-resort measures, not the first response. For potential impacts that cannot be prevented or adequately mitigated, an enhanced prevention action plan may use or increase leverage through temporary suspension if there is a reasonable expectation that the effort will succeed. If there is no such expectation, or if the enhanced plan fails and the potential adverse impact is severe, termination may be required where the law governing the relationship allows it. - Record why ordinary Article 10 or Article 11 measures were insufficient. - Record the enhanced prevention or corrective action plan and its timeline. - Assess expected adverse impacts of suspension or termination before acting. - Provide reasonable notice to the business partner when suspension or termination is chosen. - Keep the decision under review and continue monitoring where the relationship is not suspended or terminated. Sources for this answer: - [Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj/eng?ref=sorena.io) - Articles 10(6) and 11(7) set last-resort steps for severe unresolved potential or actual impacts, including enhanced action plans, suspension, termination, notice, and review. ### [What evidence records should be kept?](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/prevention-vs-mitigation.md#what-evidence-records-should-be-kept) *Module: [CSDDD prevention vs mitigation: potential and actual adverse impacts](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/prevention-vs-mitigation.md)* The useful record is an impact file, not a generic memo. It should let a reviewer see the identified impact, the Article 10 or Article 11 classification, the prioritisation basis, stakeholder input, measures selected, implementation status, and monitoring result. - Impact register entry with potential or actual status and Article 8 mapping evidence. - Severity, likelihood, and prioritisation rationale under Article 9. - Prevention action plan or corrective action plan, including timelines and indicators. - Contractual assurances, verification records, SME support records, and operational-change evidence. - Stakeholder engagement notes for information gathering, plan development, termination or suspension decisions, remediation, and monitoring indicators. - Complaint and notification records, including founded or unfounded outcomes and actions taken or planned. - Periodic assessment record showing effectiveness, updates after significant changes, and open residual issues. Sources for this answer: - [Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj/eng?ref=sorena.io) - Articles 13 to 15 support stakeholder-engagement, complaints, notification, and monitoring records for prevention, mitigation, ending impacts, and minimising their extent. ### [When does the CSDDD require remediation?](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/remediation.md#when-does-the-csddd-require-remediation) *Module: [CSDDD remediation FAQ: when companies must remedy adverse impacts](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/remediation.md)* The mandatory remediation trigger is narrow: the company must provide remediation when it has caused or jointly caused an actual adverse impact. The directive describes remediation as restoring affected persons, communities, or the environment to a situation equivalent or as close as possible to the one that would have existed without the impact, proportionate to the company's implication. - Mandatory: the company caused or jointly caused the actual adverse impact. - Voluntary or leverage-based: only the business partner caused the actual adverse impact. - Not enough by itself: a potential impact, a weak allegation, or a general supply-chain risk without an identified actual adverse impact. - Remediation can include financial or non-financial compensation and, where applicable, reimbursement of public-authority remedial costs. Sources for this answer: - [Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj/eng?ref=sorena.io) - Article 12 sets the mandatory remediation trigger and distinguishes company-caused or jointly caused impacts from impacts caused only by a business partner. ### [How should teams decide whether the company caused or jointly caused the impact?](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/remediation.md#how-should-teams-decide-whether-the-company-caused-or-jointly-caused-the-impact) *Module: [CSDDD remediation FAQ: when companies must remedy adverse impacts](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/remediation.md)* Start with the factual link between the company's own operations, its subsidiaries, and business partners in the chain of activities. The remediation file should explain what happened, who was affected, which activity or omission created the harm, and whether the company was one of the causes. - Record the actual impact, location, affected persons, communities, workers, or environmental resource. - Map the company activity, subsidiary activity, or business-partner activity linked to the impact. - State the causation view: caused by the company, jointly caused, caused only by a business partner, or still unresolved. - Define the remediation measure, the affected-stakeholder engagement step, the owner, and the follow-up date. - Keep the analysis separate from civil-liability conclusions, which depend on national law and Article 29 conditions. Sources for this answer: - [Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence](https://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj/eng?ref=sorena.io) - Recital 58 explains proportionality, affected persons and communities, and the limits when the impact was caused only by a business partner. ### [How do complaints and affected stakeholders change the remediation response?](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/remediation.md#how-do-complaints-and-affected-stakeholders-change-the-remediation-response) *Module: [CSDDD remediation FAQ: when companies must remedy adverse impacts](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/remediation.md)* Complaints are a remediation input, not just a mailbox. Article 14 requires companies to enable complaints from affected persons, people with reasonable grounds to believe they may be affected, their legitimate representatives, relevant trade unions or workers' representatives, and experienced civil-society organisations for environmental impacts. - Make the complaints procedure fair, public, accessible, predictable, and transparent. - Protect confidentiality and take reasonably available steps to prevent retaliation against complainants or notifying persons. - Do not require a complaint or notification before affected persons can use supervisory-authority procedures, civil-liability procedures, or other non-judicial mechanisms. - When adopting remediation measures, consult relevant stakeholders under Article 13 and address barriers to engagement. Sources for this answer: - [Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj/eng?ref=sorena.io) - Articles 13 and 14 connect remediation to stakeholder consultation, complaint eligibility, complaint follow-up, confidentiality, and non-retaliation. ### [What evidence should teams keep for CSDDD remediation?](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/remediation.md#what-evidence-should-teams-keep-for-csddd-remediation) *Module: [CSDDD remediation FAQ: when companies must remedy adverse impacts](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/remediation.md)* The evidence should let a later reviewer see why remediation was required, what was done, and what was left outside the remedy. Recital 61 says compliance documentation should include remediation measures, periodic assessments, notifications, and complaints where relevant. - Impact record: actual impact, affected stakeholders, date discovered, source of discovery, and chain-of-activities link. - Causation record: caused, jointly caused, business-partner-only, or unresolved, with reasons and evidence. - Complaint record: complainant category, confidentiality handling, follow-up, meeting notes where applicable, outcome, and reasons. - Stakeholder record: who was consulted, information shared, barriers addressed, refusal reasons for additional information if any, and retaliation safeguards. - Remediation record: remedy selected, proportionality rationale, owner, implementation evidence, completion status, and monitoring results. - Limit record: why any requested measure was outside Article 12, impossible, disproportionate, voluntary, or dependent on a business partner. Sources for this answer: - [Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence](https://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj/eng?ref=sorena.io) - Recital 61 supports retaining remediation measures, periodic assessments, notifications, and complaints as compliance documentation. ### [What are the limits of remediation under the CSDDD?](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/remediation.md#what-are-the-limits-of-remediation-under-the-csddd) *Module: [CSDDD remediation FAQ: when companies must remedy adverse impacts](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/remediation.md)* Remediation under Article 12 does not supersede every other route to remedy. Affected stakeholders do not have to seek company remediation before bringing claims in court, and a company complaint procedure does not block access to supervisory-authority, judicial, or other non-judicial mechanisms. - Do not promise that the company complaint procedure is the exclusive remedy route. - Do not present voluntary remediation for a business-partner-only impact as an admission that Article 12 required company remediation. - Do not use remediation language to hide unresolved prevention, mitigation, or corrective-action duties. - Do not publish penalty amounts or damages thresholds unless they are supported by the applicable national transposition and the source file. Sources for this answer: - [Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj/eng?ref=sorena.io) - Recital 58 and Articles 14 and 29 support the limits: remediation is not a precondition to court claims, complaints do not block other mechanisms, and civil liability has separate conditions. ### [When can CSDDD teams prioritise adverse impacts instead of addressing everything at once?](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/risk-prioritisation.md#when-can-csddd-teams-prioritise-adverse-impacts-instead-of-addressing-everything-at-once) *Module: [CSDDD risk prioritisation FAQ: severity, likelihood, and evidence](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/risk-prioritisation.md)* Article 9 applies after Article 8 identification and assessment. If it is not feasible to prevent, mitigate, bring to an end, or minimise all identified adverse impacts at the same time and to their full extent, the company must prioritise the impacts so it can fulfil the prevention and mitigation duties in Articles 10 and 11. - Start from identified actual and potential adverse human rights and environmental impacts, not from supplier spend, contract value, media exposure, or convenience. - Use prioritisation to sequence action when capacity, access, or timing prevents simultaneous full response. - Record when each lower-priority impact will be revisited so prioritisation does not become permanent deferral. Sources for this answer: - [Directive (EU) 2024/1760, Article 9 on prioritisation of adverse impacts](https://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj/eng?ref=sorena.io) - Article 9 states when prioritisation is used and requires the order to be based on severity and likelihood. - [EUR-Lex summary of Directive (EU) 2024/1760](https://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj/eng?ref=sorena.io) - The EUR-Lex summary describes the directive's requirement to identify impacts and prioritise addressing them based on severity and likelihood. ### [How should teams score severity and likelihood for CSDDD prioritisation?](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/risk-prioritisation.md#how-should-teams-score-severity-and-likelihood-for-csddd-prioritisation) *Module: [CSDDD risk prioritisation FAQ: severity, likelihood, and evidence](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/risk-prioritisation.md)* Severity should focus on the impact on people or the environment. The CSDDD definition points to scale, scope, and irremediable character, including gravity, number of affected people, environmental extent, irreversibility, and limits on restoring affected people or the environment within a reasonable period. - Severity fields: affected right or environmental interest, scale, scope, irremediability, affected groups, affected sites, and restoration limits. - Likelihood fields: known incidents, complaints, credible external reports, supplier or site assessment results, operating context, sector risk, product or service risk, and change triggers. - Outcome field: ranked priority tier, immediate action, action owner, planned follow-up for lower-ranked impacts, and the reason the ranking changed or stayed the same. Sources for this answer: - [Directive (EU) 2024/1760, severity definition and risk factors](https://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj/eng?ref=sorena.io) - Article 3 defines severity by scale, scope, and irremediable character and defines risk factors by severity and likelihood. - [OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct](https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/?ref=sorena.io) - The OECD guidance supports prioritising the most significant risks and treating severity as especially important for human rights impacts. ### [What stakeholder evidence belongs in a CSDDD prioritisation file?](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/risk-prioritisation.md#what-stakeholder-evidence-belongs-in-a-csddd-prioritisation-file) *Module: [CSDDD risk prioritisation FAQ: severity, likelihood, and evidence](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/risk-prioritisation.md)* Stakeholder evidence should help test the company's view of severity and likelihood. Article 13 requires stakeholder consultation when gathering information to identify, assess, and prioritise adverse impacts, and again for prevention or corrective action plans, suspension or termination decisions, remediation, and monitoring indicators. - Record who was consulted: employees, workers' representatives, affected communities, consumers, civil society organisations, environmental or human rights institutions, or legitimate representatives. - Record how barriers were handled: language, access, retaliation risk, confidentiality, anonymity, vulnerable groups, and overlapping vulnerabilities. - Record what changed: priority score, action plan, indicator, escalation, or explanation for why stakeholder evidence did not change the ranking. Sources for this answer: - [Directive (EU) 2024/1760, Article 13 on meaningful stakeholder engagement](https://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj/eng?ref=sorena.io) - Article 13 requires consultation when gathering information to identify, assess, and prioritise impacts and sets safeguards for effective engagement. - [OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct](https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/?ref=sorena.io) - The OECD guidance supports using stakeholder feedback and direct consultation to understand and track adverse impacts. ### [What makes a CSDDD prioritisation rationale audit-ready?](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/risk-prioritisation.md#what-makes-a-csddd-prioritisation-rationale-audit-ready) *Module: [CSDDD risk prioritisation FAQ: severity, likelihood, and evidence](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/risk-prioritisation.md)* An audit-ready rationale should let a reviewer trace the decision from identified impact to priority ranking to action. It should explain why the selected impacts were treated first, which evidence was used, which stakeholders or experts informed the assessment, and when lower-ranked impacts will be addressed. - Impact record: description, actual or potential status, affected people or environmental area, activity, subsidiary, direct or indirect business partner, and chain-of-activities location. - Priority record: severity analysis, likelihood analysis, stakeholder or expert evidence, missing information, assumptions, and the reason for the final rank. - Action record: prevention, mitigation, ending, minimisation, remediation, business partner engagement, contractual assurance, verification, support to SMEs, or escalation path. - Review record: monitoring indicator, responsible owner, next review event, and evidence showing less severe or less likely impacts are not forgotten. Sources for this answer: - [Directive (EU) 2024/1760, Articles 9 to 11 on prioritisation and response](https://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj/eng?ref=sorena.io) - Articles 9 to 11 connect priority ranking to prevention, mitigation, bringing actual impacts to an end, and minimising impacts. - [OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct](https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/?ref=sorena.io) - The OECD guidance supports risk-based due diligence, prioritising the most significant risks where immediate action on every impact is not possible, and then moving to less significant impacts. ### [What are the current CSDDD scope waves after Directive (EU) 2025/794?](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/scope-waves.md#what-are-the-current-csddd-scope-waves-after-directive-eu-2025794) *Module: [CSDDD scope waves: current Article 37 dates and thresholds](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/scope-waves.md)* The current CSDDD phase-in is no longer the original 26 July 2027, 26 July 2028, and 26 July 2029 sequence. Directive (EU) 2025/794 amended Article 37 so Member States must transpose by 26 July 2027 and apply the national measures from 26 July 2028 for the larger wave and from 26 July 2029 for all other in-scope companies. - 26 July 2027: Member States' transposition deadline under the amended Article 37 text. - 26 July 2028: first application wave for the larger EU and third-country Article 2(1)(a)-(b) and Article 2(2)(a)-(b) cohorts above the EUR 900 million threshold. - 26 July 2029: application for all other companies in Article 2(1)(a)-(b), Article 2(2)(a)-(b), and the franchise or licensing categories in Article 2(1)(c) and Article 2(2)(c). - Article 16 communication duties are delayed separately: financial years starting on or after 1 January 2029 for the 2028 wave, and financial years starting on or after 1 January 2030 for the 2029 wave. Sources for this answer: - [Directive (EU) 2025/794 amending CSDDD application dates](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2025/794/oj/eng?ref=sorena.io) - Supports the current Article 37 transposition deadline and the amended 26 July 2028 and 26 July 2029 application waves. - [Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj?ref=sorena.io) - Provides the underlying CSDDD Article 2 company categories referenced by the amended Article 37 phase-in. ### [Which companies move into the 26 July 2029 CSDDD wave?](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/scope-waves.md#which-companies-move-into-the-26-july-2029-csddd-wave) *Module: [CSDDD scope waves: current Article 37 dates and thresholds](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/scope-waves.md)* The 26 July 2029 wave is the catch-up wave for companies that are in Article 2 scope but are not in the larger 26 July 2028 EUR 900 million cohorts. For EU companies, the main Article 2(1)(a) threshold remains more than 1,000 employees on average and more than EUR 450 million net worldwide turnover. Ultimate parent companies of groups meeting those thresholds are also covered. - EU company threshold: more than 1,000 employees on average and more than EUR 450 million net worldwide turnover. - Third-country company threshold: more than EUR 450 million net turnover generated in the Union. - EU and non-EU parent groups can be in scope when the group reaches the relevant Article 2 threshold on a consolidated basis. - Franchise or licensing categories can be in scope even when the main employee-and-turnover test is not met. Sources for this answer: - [Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj?ref=sorena.io) - Supports the Article 2 EU, third-country, group, franchise, and licensing scope thresholds. - [Directive (EU) 2025/794 amending CSDDD application dates](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2025/794/oj/eng?ref=sorena.io) - Supports that all other Article 2 in-scope companies move to the 26 July 2029 application date, with Article 16 from financial years starting on or after 1 January 2030. ### [How should a company check its CSDDD wave?](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/scope-waves.md#how-should-a-company-check-its-csddd-wave) *Module: [CSDDD scope waves: current Article 37 dates and thresholds](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/scope-waves.md)* Start with Article 2 scope, then apply Article 37 timing. A company outside Article 2 is not pulled in merely because a business partner asks for CSDDD information. A company inside Article 2 still needs the amended Article 37 test to identify whether its first application date is 26 July 2028 or 26 July 2029. - Classify the entity: EU company, EU ultimate parent group, third-country company, third-country ultimate parent group, or franchise/licensing category. - Measure the relevant Article 2 threshold using the financial year specified for that category. - Check whether the company reaches the larger 26 July 2028 wave: EU Article 2(1)(a)-(b) companies need more than 3,000 employees and more than EUR 900 million net worldwide turnover; third-country Article 2(2)(a)-(b) companies need more than EUR 900 million net turnover in the Union. - If the company is in Article 2 scope but not in the 2028 wave, treat 26 July 2029 as the application date for the due diligence measures. Sources for this answer: - [Directive (EU) 2025/794 amending CSDDD application dates](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2025/794/oj/eng?ref=sorena.io) - Supports the operational distinction between the 2028 larger-company wave and the 2029 remaining in-scope-company wave. - [Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj?ref=sorena.io) - Supports the separate Article 2 scope tests for EU companies, third-country companies, groups, and franchise or licensing arrangements. ### [What evidence should teams retain for CSDDD scope waves?](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/scope-waves.md#what-evidence-should-teams-retain-for-csddd-scope-waves) *Module: [CSDDD scope waves: current Article 37 dates and thresholds](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/scope-waves.md)* Retain evidence that lets a reviewer reconstruct both parts of the analysis: why the company is or is not within Article 2, and why the selected application date follows from the amended Article 37 text. The record should not rely on the superseded 26 July 2027 first-wave date from the original directive text. - Article 2 scope memo identifying the tested entity, group relationship, EU or third-country status, financial year, employee count where relevant, net turnover measure, and franchise or licensing royalty amount where relevant. - Article 37 wave conclusion naming 26 July 2028 or 26 July 2029 and explaining why the company is or is not in the larger EUR 900 million wave. - Article 16 note showing whether communication duties start for financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2029 or 1 January 2030. - Source extracts from Directive (EU) 2024/1760 and Directive (EU) 2025/794, with the date when the legal team last checked the current consolidated text. - Owner and review trigger list for annual financial statement adoption, group restructuring, EU turnover changes, and material changes to franchise or licensing arrangements. Sources for this answer: - [Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj?ref=sorena.io) - Supports the evidence fields tied to Article 2 thresholds and company categories. - [Directive (EU) 2025/794 amending CSDDD application dates](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2025/794/oj/eng?ref=sorena.io) - Supports retaining the amended Article 37 application-date conclusion and Article 16 financial-year timing. ### [What mistake should teams avoid with CSDDD scope waves?](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/scope-waves.md#what-mistake-should-teams-avoid-with-csddd-scope-waves) *Module: [CSDDD scope waves: current Article 37 dates and thresholds](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/scope-waves.md)* The main mistake is using the original Directive (EU) 2024/1760 phase-in schedule as if it were still current. That can incorrectly leave a 26 July 2027 first wave in calendars and supplier requests. Current planning should use the Article 37 wording amended by Directive (EU) 2025/794. - Do not describe the 2025 changes as only proposal-stage when relying on Directive (EU) 2025/794 for current Article 37 timing. - Do not apply the EU employee threshold to the main third-country company test in Article 2(2)(a). - Do not treat Article 16 communication dates as identical to the due diligence measure application dates. - Do not cite old phase-in dates without marking them as superseded by the amended Article 37 text. Sources for this answer: - [Directive (EU) 2025/794 amending CSDDD application dates](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2025/794/oj/eng?ref=sorena.io) - Supports treating the amended Article 37 timing as current rather than proposal-stage. - [European Commission stop-the-clock proposal for CSRD and CSDDD dates](https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/0affa9a8-2ac5-46a9-98f8-19205bf61eb5_en?filename=COM_2025_80_EN.pdf&ref=sorena.io) - Provides background on the proposal that led to postponing the CSDDD transposition deadline and first application wave; use the adopted directive for the current rule. ### [What does CSDDD Article 22 require for climate transition plans?](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/transition-plans.md#what-does-csddd-article-22-require-for-climate-transition-plans) *Module: [CSDDD transition plans FAQ: Article 22 climate plan requirements](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/transition-plans.md)* Article 22 requires covered companies to adopt and put into effect a transition plan for climate change mitigation. The plan must aim, through best efforts, to make the company's business model and strategy compatible with the transition to a sustainable economy, the 1.5 C Paris Agreement pathway, and the EU climate-neutrality objective under the European Climate Law. - Start by confirming whether the company is within the CSDDD company-scope provisions referenced in Article 22. - Connect the plan to the company's business model and strategy, not only to a standalone climate policy. - Record any relevant exposure to coal-, oil-, and gas-related activities because Article 22 calls out that exposure where relevant. - Keep the transition plan current: Article 22 requires an update every 12 months with progress against the climate targets. Sources for this answer: - [Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj?ref=sorena.io) - Article 22 is the binding CSDDD source for the climate transition-plan obligation, required plan contents, CSRD adoption overlap, and 12-month update requirement. - [European Commission: Corporate sustainability due diligence](https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/doing-business-eu/sustainability-due-diligence-responsible-business/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence_en?ref=sorena.io) - The Commission page summarises CSDDD as requiring large companies to address adverse human rights and environmental impacts and to adopt a climate transition plan aligned with EU climate objectives. ### [Which targets belong in a CSDDD transition plan?](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/transition-plans.md#which-targets-belong-in-a-csddd-transition-plan) *Module: [CSDDD transition plans FAQ: Article 22 climate plan requirements](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/transition-plans.md)* The plan should include time-bound climate targets for 2030 and then in five-year steps up to 2050. Article 22 says these targets must be based on conclusive scientific evidence. - Target table: baseline year, target year, absolute emissions target, covered scopes, significant categories, and scientific basis. - Boundary record: entities, operations, subsidiaries, and value-chain categories included or excluded from the target. - Progress record: current performance against each target and the explanation used in the annual Article 22 update. - Approval record: who reviewed the target assumptions before the plan was adopted or updated. Sources for this answer: - [Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj?ref=sorena.io) - Article 22 specifies 2030 targets, five-year steps to 2050, conclusive scientific evidence, and Scope 1, 2, and 3 absolute emission-reduction targets where appropriate. ### [What are decarbonisation levers under Article 22?](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/transition-plans.md#what-are-decarbonisation-levers-under-article-22) *Module: [CSDDD transition plans FAQ: Article 22 climate plan requirements](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/transition-plans.md)* Article 22 requires a description of the decarbonisation levers identified and the key actions planned to reach the climate targets. In practice, that means the plan should identify how emissions are expected to fall, who owns each lever, and which operational decision makes the lever real. - Product and service portfolio changes, including the business-unit owner and affected revenue or offering category. - New technology adoption, including deployment assumptions, dependencies, and expected emissions effect. - Operational process, facility, infrastructure, purchasing, or distribution changes when they support the transition plan targets. - Dependencies and constraints, especially where target delivery depends on suppliers, customers, infrastructure, or technology availability. Sources for this answer: - [Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj?ref=sorena.io) - Article 22 requires transition plans to describe identified decarbonisation levers and key actions, including product or service portfolio changes and new technologies where appropriate. ### [How should investment, funding, and governance be explained?](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/transition-plans.md#how-should-investment-funding-and-governance-be-explained) *Module: [CSDDD transition plans FAQ: Article 22 climate plan requirements](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/transition-plans.md)* Article 22 requires an explanation and quantification of the investments and funding supporting the transition plan. A useful plan should therefore link each material lever to the capital, operating spend, financing, or budget line that makes implementation credible. - Investment register: lever, amount or quantified range, timing, funding source, owner, dependency, and status. - Funding explanation: whether the plan depends on internal budgets, external financing, supplier support, or other funding arrangements. - Governance record: board or management body agenda, approval minutes, review materials, and progress dashboards. - Escalation record: target misses, delayed investments, changed assumptions, and decisions taken by the responsible body. Sources for this answer: - [Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj?ref=sorena.io) - Article 22 requires quantified investment and funding explanations and a description of administrative, management, and supervisory body roles in the climate transition plan. ## FAQ Pagination - Canonical index (page 1): [/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/items](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/items.md) - Page 1 rule: `/page/1` is intentionally not generated; use the canonical index markdown URL. - Current page: 3 of 4 Pages: [1](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/items.md) | [2](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/items/page/2.md) | [3](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/items/page/3.md) | [4](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/items/page/4.md) [Previous page](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/items/page/2.md) | [Next page](/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/items/page/4.md) *Recommended next step* *Placement: after evidence section* ## Turn CSDDD answers into evidence Use the CSDDD FAQ to convert scope, chain-of-activities, impact, complaints, remediation, liability, and climate-plan decisions into traceable records. - [Open Research Copilot](/solutions/research-copilot.md): Answer CSDDD implementation questions with cited source material. - [Discuss CSDDD implementation](/contact.md): Review CSDDD scope, evidence, and operating-model gaps with Sorena. --- [Privacy Policy](https://www.sorena.io/privacy) | [Terms of Use](https://www.sorena.io/terms-of-use) | [DMCA](https://www.sorena.io/dmca) | [About Us](https://www.sorena.io/about-us) (c) 2026 Sorena AB (559573-7338). All rights reserved. Source: https://www.sorena.io/artifacts/eu/corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-directive/faq/items/page/3