opinion parliamentary committee, 15 July 2025
On the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2006/43/EC, 2013/34/EU, (EU) 2022/2464 and (EU) 2024/1760 as regards certain corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements
Document INTA-AD-775587 · (COM(2025)0081 – C100037/2025 – 2025/0045(COD))
Committee on International Trade · Rapporteur: Mika Aaltola
AI:In short
The Committee on International Trade proposes amendments to the Commission's proposal amending the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, focusing on due diligence obligations and business relationship measures.
Position. The Committee on International Trade proposes amendments to the Commission's proposal, focusing on refining due diligence obligations and business relationship measures.
Key points
- Companies must take appropriate measures based on a risk-based approach, including scoping to identify areas where adverse impacts are most likely and severe.
- In-depth assessments are required when scoping indicates possible adverse impacts, with priority given to direct business partners based on severity and likelihood.
- If an assessment confirms an adverse impact, it is deemed identified.
- The amendment deletes the requirement for in-depth assessments of indirect business partners under certain conditions.
- Relevant information for assessments includes submissions, authority data, stakeholder consultations, and reports from entities.
- Companies must prioritize requesting information directly from business partners where impacts are most likely, using external data sources when sufficient.
- Suspension of business relationships should be temporary and used when possible, with prior consultation and assessment of alternatives.
- Member states must allow suspension or termination in contracts, except where parties are legally obliged to contract.
- For actual adverse impacts not ended or minimized, companies may use corrective action plans and temporary suspension as last resort.
- Continuing engagement does not trigger liability if a corrective action plan is reasonably expected to succeed.
- Companies may avoid suspension if it would cause substantial prejudice or if adverse impacts are not serious violations of international human rights law, referring to supervisory authority for guidance.
- When not suspending, companies must monitor actual adverse impacts and periodically reassess decisions.
Who is affected
- Companies subject to the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, particularly those with complex supply chains.
- Business partners, especially direct ones, may face increased scrutiny and contractual assurances.
- Competent supervisory authorities will provide guidance to companies on courses of action.
Written by AI from the full text · every figure comes from the text · ¶ opens the paragraph · 4 Sept 2026 · Report a problem
Full text
Jump to an amendment (17)
Text 104 paragraphs
AMENDMENTS
The Committee on International Trade submits the following to the Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible:
Amendment 1
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point -a (new)
Directive (EU) 2024/1760
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (-a) in paragraph 2, the introductory part is replaced by the following: | |
| ‘2. As part of the obligation set out in paragraph 1, following a risk-based approach that takes into account relevant risk factors, companies shall take appropriate measures to:’ |
Amendment 2
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point -a a (new)
Directive (EU) 2024/1760
Read the rest (92 paragraphs)
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (-aa) in paragraph 2, point (a) is replaced by the following: | |
| ‘(a) carry out a scoping, based on reasonably available information, to identify general areas across their own operations, those of their subsidiaries and, where related to their chains of activities, those of their business partners, where adverse impacts are most likely to occur and to be most severe;’ |
Amendment 3
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point a
Directive (EU) 2024/1760
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (b) based on the results of the mapping as referred to in point (a), carry out and in-depth assessment of their own operations, those of their subsidiaries and, where related to their chains of activities, those of their direct business partners, in the areas where adverse impacts were identified to be most likely to occur and most severe.; | (b) based on the results of the scoping as referred to in point (a), and where, on the basis of relevant, factual and reliable information, the company has grounds to believe that adverse impacts have arisen or may arise, carry out an in-depth assessment of the relevant business partners or the area in their chains of activities where adverse impacts were identified to be most likely to occur and most severe. Companies shall be able to prioritise assessing direct business partners, in line with severity and likelihood of the adverse impacts. |
Amendment 4
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point a a (new)
Directive (EU) 2024/1760
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (aa) in paragraph 2, the following subparagraph is added: | |
| ‘Where the assessment confirms the likelihood or existence of the adverse impact, that impact shall be deemed to have been identified.’ |
Amendment 5
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b
Directive (EU) 2024/1760
Article 8 – paragraph 2a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (b) the following paragraph 2a is inserted: | deleted |
| ‘2a. Where a company has plausible information that suggests that adverse impacts at the level of the operations of an indirect business partner have arisen or may arise, it shall carry out an in-depth assessment. The company shall always carry out such an assessment where the indirect, rather than direct, nature of the relationship with the business partner is the result of an artificial arrangement that does not reflect economic reality but points to a circumvention of paragraph 2, point (b). Where the assessment confirms the likelihood or existence of the adverse impact, it is deemed to have been identified. | |
| The first subparagraph is without prejudice to the company considering available information about indirect business partners and whether those business partners can follow the rules and principles set out in the company’s code of conduct when selecting a direct business partner. | |
| Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, irrespective of whether plausible information is available about indirect business partners, a company shall seek contractual assurances from a direct business partner that that business partner will ensure compliance with the company’s code of conduct by establishing corresponding contractual assurances from its business partners. Article 10(2), points (b) and (e) shall apply accordingly.’; |
Amendment 6
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point b a (new)
Directive (EU) 2024/1760
Article 8 – paragraph 2a a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (ba) the following paragraph is inserted: | |
| ‘2aa. Relevant, factual and reliable information shall include: | |
| (a) submissions of information made pursuant to Article 14; | |
| (b) information made available by any authority relevant for the implementation of this Directive, such as Member States’ due diligence, labour, or health authorities; | |
| (c) any issues arising from meaningful consultations with relevant stakeholders, such as business representatives, civil society organisations and trade unions, or pursuant to Article 13; | |
| (d) reports, studies and impact assessments by relevant entities, including industry and multi-stakeholder initiatives.’ |
Amendment 7
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point c
Directive (EU) 2024/1760
Article 8 – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Where information necessary for the in-depth assessment provided for in paragraph 2, point (b), and in paragraph 2a can be obtained from different business partners, the company shall prioritise requesting such information, where reasonable, directly from the business partner or partners where the adverse impacts are most likely to occur.; | 4. For the purposes of the in-depth assessment in accordance with paragraph 2, point (b), where existing and external data sources are not sufficient and additional necessary information can be obtained from different business partners, the company shall prioritise requesting such information directly from the business partner or partners where the adverse impacts are most likely to occur.; |
Amendment 8
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive (EU) 2024/1760
Article 10 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (c) use or increase its leverage through the suspension of the business relationship with respect to the activities concerned. | (c) use or increase its leverage, where possible, through the temporary suspension of the business relationship with respect to the activities concerned. |
Amendment 9
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive (EU) 2024/1760
Article 10 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Prior to suspending a business relationship, the company shall assess whether the adverse impacts from doing so can be reasonably expected to be manifestly more severe than the adverse impact that could not be prevented or adequately mitigated. Should that be the case, the company shall not be required to suspend the business relationship and shall be in a position to report to the competent supervisory authority about the duly justified reasons for such decision. | Prior to temporarily suspending a business relationship, the company shall assess in consultation with relevant stakeholders, whether no available alternative to that business relationship, that provides a raw material, product or service essential to the company’s production of goods or provision of services, exists and the suspension would cause substantial prejudice to the company or whether the adverse impacts from doing so can be reasonably expected to be manifestly more severe than the adverse impact that could not be prevented or adequately mitigated. Should that be the case, the company shall not be required to suspend the business relationship and shall refer to the competent supervisory authority to receive guidance on the course of action to take. |
Amendment 10
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Directive (EU) 2024/1760
Article 10 – paragraph 6 – subparagraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Member States shall provide for an option to suspend the business relationship in contracts governed by their laws in accordance with the first subparagraph, except for contracts where the parties are obliged by law to enter into them. | Member States shall provide for an option to suspend or terminate the business relationship in contracts governed by their laws in accordance with the first subparagraph, except for contracts where the parties are obliged by law to enter into them. |
Amendment 11
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive (EU) 2024/1760
Article 11 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| As regards actual adverse impacts as referred to in paragraph 1 that could not be prevented or adequately mitigated by the measures set out in paragraphs 3, 5 and 6, the company shall, as a last resort: | As regards actual adverse impacts as referred to in paragraph 1 that could not be brought to an end or the extent of which could not be minimised by the measures set out in paragraphs 3, 5 and 6, the company shall, as a last resort: |
Amendment 12
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive (EU) 2024/1760
Article 11 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point b
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (b) where the law governing its relation with the business partner concerned so entitles it, adopt and implement an enhanced prevention action plan for the specific adverse impact without undue delay, provided that there is a reasonable expectation that those efforts will succeed, and | (b) where the law governing its relation with the business partner concerned so entitles it, adopt and implement an enhanced corrective action plan for the specific adverse impact without undue delay, provided that there is a reasonable expectation that those efforts will succeed, and |
Amendment 13
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive (EU) 2024/1760
Article 11 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point c
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (c) use or increase its leverage through the suspension of the business relationship with respect to the activities concerned. | (c) use or increase its leverage, where possible, through the temporary suspension of the business relationship with respect to the activities concerned. |
Amendment 14
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive (EU) 2024/1760
Article 11 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| As long as there is a reasonable expectation that the enhanced prevention action plan will succeed, the mere fact of continuing to engage with the business partner shall not trigger the company’s liability. | As long as there is a reasonable expectation that the enhanced corrective action plan will succeed, the mere fact of continuing to engage with the business partner shall not trigger the company’s liability. |
Amendment 15
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive (EU) 2024/1760
Article 11 – paragraph 7– subparagraph 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Prior to suspending a business relationship, the company shall assess whether the adverse impacts from doing so can be reasonably expected to be manifestly more severe than the adverse impact that could not be prevented or adequately mitigated. Should that be the case, the company shall not be required to suspend the business relationship and shall be in a position to report to the competent supervisory authority about the duly justified reasons for such decision. | Prior to temporarily suspending a business relationship, the company shall assess, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, whether no available alternative to that business relationship, that provides a raw material, product or service essential to the company’s production of goods or provision of services, exists and the suspension would cause substantial prejudice to the company, or whether the adverse impacts from doing so can be reasonably expected to be manifestly more severe than the adverse impact that could not be brought to an end. Should that be the case, provided that the adverse impacts do not amount to serious violations of international human rights law, the company shall not be required to suspend the business relationship and shall refer to the competent supervisory authority to receive guidance on the course of action to take. |
Amendment 16
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive (EU) 2024/1760
Article 11 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Member States shall provide for an option to suspend the business relationship in contracts governed by their laws in accordance with the first subparagraph, except for contracts where the parties are obliged by law to enter into them. | Member States shall provide for an option to suspend or terminate the business relationship in contracts governed by their laws in accordance with the first subparagraph, except for contracts where the parties are obliged by law to enter into them. |
Amendment 17
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Directive (EU) 2024/1760
Article 11 – paragraph 7– subparagraph 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Where the company decides not to suspend the business relationship pursuant to this Article, it shall monitor the potential adverse impact and periodically assess its decision and whether further appropriate measures are available.; | Where the company decides not to suspend the business relationship pursuant to this Article, it shall monitor the actual adverse impact and periodically assess its decision and whether further appropriate measures are available.; |
Annex: declaration of input 4 paragraphs
Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur for opinion declares that he included in his opinion input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that he received, in the preparation of the opinion, prior to the adoption thereof in committee, from the following interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from the following representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies:
| 1. Interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register |
| Suomen Tekstiili ja Muoti ry |
| Hitachi Energy |
| Global Witness |
| Finnwatch ry |
| Burson X |
| ACEA Auto |
| The Walt Disney Company |
| Koch |
| Kaupan liitto |
| Nokia |
| Teneo |
| Elinkeinoelämän keskusliitto |
| Teknologiateollisuus ry |
| Atlantic Council |
| Japan Business Council in Europe |
| EESC |
| 2. Representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies |
The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur for opinion.
Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur for opinion declares that he has submitted to the natural persons concerned the European Parliament's Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.
Procedure pages
How the committees handled the text, and how their members voted on it.
Procedure – committee asked for opinion 1 paragraph
| Title | Amending Directives 2006/43/EC, 2013/34/EU, (EU) 2022/2464 and (EU) 2024/1760 as regards certain corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements | |
| References | COM(2025)0081 – C10-0037/2025 – 2025/0045(COD) | |
| Committee(s) responsible Date announced in plenary | JURI 31.3.2025 | |
| Opinion by Date announced in plenary | INTA 31.3.2025 | |
| Rapporteur for the opinion Date appointed | Mika Aaltola 29.4.2025 | |
| Discussed in committee | 14.5.2025 | |
| Date adopted | 15.7.2025 | |
| Result of final vote | +: –: 0: | 36 4 1 |
| Members present for the final vote | Manon Aubry, Christophe Bay, Brando Benifei, Lynn Boylan, Anna Bryłka, Udo Bullmann, Benoit Cassart, Andi Cristea, Bart Groothuis, Enikő Győri, Svenja Hahn, Karin Karlsbro, Rudi Kennes, Rihards Kols, Sebastian Kruis, Bernd Lange, Ilia Lazarov, Miriam Lexmann, Jaak Madison, Gabriel Mato, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Ştefan Muşoiu, Daniele Polato, Majdouline Sbai, Lukas Sieper, Francesco Torselli, Inese Vaidere, Marie-Pierre Vedrenne, Catarina Vieira, Jörgen Warborn, Iuliu Winkler, Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez | |
| Substitutes present for the final vote | Mika Aaltola, Francisco Assis, Nina Carberry, Dariusz Joński, Cristina Maestre, Branislav Ondruš, Pierre Pimpie | |
| Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote | Hans Neuhoff |
Final vote by roll call by the committee asked for opinion 3 paragraphs
36 · For
- ECR
- Rihards Kols, Jaak Madison, Daniele Polato, Francesco Torselli
- No group
- Lukas Sieper
- EPP
- Mika Aaltola, Nina Carberry, Dariusz Joński, Ilia Lazarov, Miriam Lexmann, Gabriel Mato, Inese Vaidere, Jörgen Warborn, Iuliu Winkler, Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez
- Patriots
- Christophe Bay, Anna Bryłka, Enikő Győri, Sebastian Kruis, Pierre Pimpie
- Renew
- Benoit Cassart, Bart Groothuis, Svenja Hahn, Karin Karlsbro, Marie-Pierre Vedrenne
- S&D
- Francisco Assis, Brando Benifei, Udo Bullmann, Andi Cristea, Bernd Lange, Cristina Maestre, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Ştefan Muşoiu
- Greens
- Majdouline Sbai, Catarina Vieira
4 · Against
- ESN
- Hans Neuhoff
- The Left
- Manon Aubry, Lynn Boylan, Rudi Kennes
1 · Abstained
- No group
- Branislav Ondruš