CSDDD Guidelines: IOGP Europe recommendations for workable implementation

The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) was created to strengthen how companies identify and address adverse human rights and environmental impacts in their operations, subsidiaries and chains of activities. Its effectiveness depends on requirements that companies can apply across complex business relationships and jurisdictions.

The Omnibus I amendments simplified these requirements, including through initial risk scoping based solely on reasonably available information and in-depth assessments focused on areas where adverse impacts are most likely and severe. The European Commission’s forthcoming Guidelines should explain how to apply these provisions consistently, without introducing additional obligations.

IOGP Europe’s position paper identifies six priorities for the Guidelines:

1. Assess the adequacy of processes and measures. An adverse impact should not, by itself, establish a failure to meet due diligence obligations. Supervisory assessments should consider reasonable, documented and good-faith decisions.
2. Recognise existing systems. Companies should be able to build on risk management, supplier assessments, environmental and social impact assessments, and grievance mechanisms where these meet the Directive’s requirements.
3. Clarify risk scoping. Guidance should distinguish initial scoping from in-depth assessment, avoid expectations of exhaustive mapping of every tier, and reflect differences in control, leverage and access to information.
4. Address cross-border legal constraints. Companies need guidance on conflicting legal requirements, confidentiality, sanctions and restricted access to information, including the use of credible alternative sources.
5. Keep contracts and verification proportionate. Model clauses should remain voluntary. Industry initiatives and third-party assurance should count as relevant evidence without becoming mandatory compliance tools or automatic safe harbours.
6. Clarify responsibility and remediation. Guidance should distinguish between causing, jointly causing and being linked to an impact. Disengagement should remain a last resort, taking account of potential consequences for workers, communities and the environment.

We therefore call for a true stakeholder consultation or implantation dialogue on the draft Guidelines to test their practical application before final publication.

Read the full position paper here