Search every question across sub-FAQs

Article 22 creates a limited overlap with the CSRD reporting regime. A company that reports a transition plan for climate change mitigation under Article 19a, 29a, or 40a of Directive 2013/34/EU is deemed to have complied with the CSDDD obligation to adopt a transition plan.

That overlap should not be read as a reason to leave the plan unmanaged. Article 22 separately requires the transition plan to be updated every 12 months and to describe progress towards the plan's climate targets. Subsidiaries included in a parent undertaking's reported transition plan may also rely on that parent plan for the adoption obligation, but the subsidiary should retain evidence that the parent plan was reported and applies to its business model and strategy.

The evidence file should prove that the plan exists, contains the Article 22 elements, is connected to the company's business model and strategy, and is updated every 12 months with progress against targets. It should be readable by sustainability, legal, finance, procurement, and board-support teams without needing oral history from the original preparers.

Avoid evidence files that only store final slides. The useful record connects targets to emissions data, levers to actions, investment to funding, governance to approvals, and annual updates to progress and changed assumptions.

No. CSDDD is an EU directive that Member States must transpose and enforce through national law. The OECD Guidelines, UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, OECD due diligence guidance, and ILO Tripartite Declaration are reference frameworks that influenced the directive's due diligence model and help explain what credible implementation looks like.

For legal applicability, thresholds, supervisory authority powers, civil liability, penalties, and application dates, use CSDDD and the implementing national law. For operational design, use the international frameworks to test whether the company's process covers the expected due diligence lifecycle and the relevant rights-holder and worker perspectives.

OECD guidance is most useful as the operating model for risk-based due diligence. It describes the sequence a CSDDD program should be able to evidence: embed responsible business conduct into policies and management systems, identify and assess actual and potential adverse impacts, cease, prevent and mitigate impacts, track implementation and results, communicate how impacts are addressed, and provide for or cooperate in remediation when appropriate.

That OECD sequence aligns closely with CSDDD's due diligence requirements, but the company still needs a CSDDD-specific control map. Each OECD-inspired process step should point to the relevant CSDDD obligation, the affected operation, subsidiary or chain-of-activities relationship, the risk severity and likelihood assessment, and the evidence retained.

The UNGPs are especially useful for preventing a CSDDD program from becoming a supplier-audit exercise that misses affected people. They frame human rights due diligence around actual and potential adverse impacts on rights-holders, not only enterprise risk. They also distinguish policy commitment, human rights due diligence, remediation, stakeholder consultation, tracking, and communication.

For CSDDD work, that means the evidence file should show which people or communities may be affected, which human rights standards were considered, what internal or external expertise was used, how potentially affected stakeholders were consulted or why an alternative was used, and how findings were integrated into business decisions.

ILO standards help translate CSDDD's human rights due diligence into labour-rights checks. The directive's annex refers to labour-related rights and prohibitions, including forced labour, child labour, freedom of association, collective bargaining, equal treatment, and safe and healthy working conditions. The ILO Tripartite Declaration adds practical labour and industrial-relations context for multinational enterprises, governments, employers, and workers' organizations.

A grounded CSDDD labour-risk file should therefore connect the detected labour issue to the relevant CSDDD annex item, the workforce or worker-representative evidence, the supplier or workplace context, the prevention or mitigation measure, and any remediation or grievance route. It should avoid vague claims that a supplier is ILO-aligned unless the underlying labour rights and evidence are identified.

Good evidence does not say only that the company follows OECD, UNGP, or ILO standards. It shows how those standards informed a CSDDD control and where the binding CSDDD requirement is satisfied. The record should be readable by legal, sustainability, procurement, internal audit, and business owners without relying on a separate narrative.

The most useful record is a crosswalk: CSDDD obligation, related international standard, affected operation or business relationship, adverse impact, severity and likelihood, stakeholder input, action taken, owner, result-tracking method, remediation route, and source citation. That crosswalk helps prevent both overstatement and under-implementation.