Brussels, 28 July 2026. The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) has contributed to the open consultation launched by the European Commission to gather recommendations on the implementation of the Corporate Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) at the national level of each Member State.
Under the impulse and tireless campaigning of civil society, including FIDH, this landmark legislation was first approved in 2024 with the hope of setting the stage for more corporate accountability–but it was weakened just a year later through an opaque and rushed "Omnibus" process.
While FIDH appreciates the Commission’s open consultative process, it strongly regrets its framing.
The systematic use of the notion of "cost-effectiveness" throughout the consultation questionnaire goes against the spirit of mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence and, most importantly, existing international human rights standards. It alludes to a cost-based rationale for deprioritising identification of risks, prevention and remediation of corporate harms.
When it comes to human rights and environmental abuses, the considerations of "cost-effectiveness" cannot take precedence over companies’ duty to fully and adequately prevent and remedy the business harms suffered by affected individuals and communities.
The Guidelines should insist on the importance for companies to meaningfully engage a wide range of stakeholders, particularly affected and potentially affected persons. They must do so in an ongoing, safe and timely manner throughout the due diligence process to ensure that existing due diligence and remediation measures effectively respond to their needs.
Lastly, the Guidelines should recall that the aim of due diligence is to ensure companies internalise a human rights approach in their policies and practices. Companies must understand and genuinely be concerned for the impacts of their value chains, beyond just financial and security risks and considerations.
If the Guidelines were to offer one-size-fits-all solutions or establish lists of references, this could prove counterproductive and jeopardise the very objective of the CSDDD and its process: to bring about access to justice and real remedy for those whose rights are undermined by corporate behaviour – and ensure steps are taken to prevent these abuses.
See our full contribution to the consultation here.