Sittings · Document

Draft report (COM(2025)0081 – C100037/2025 – 2025/0045(COD)) 2025-07-04

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

Committee on Legal Affairs

Official HTML ↗ PDF DOCX

AM_Com_LegReport

Amendment 83

David Cormand, Maria Ohisalo, Jaume Asens Llodrà, Benedetta Scuderi, Pär Holmgren, Vicent Marzà Ibáñez

Draft legislative resolution

Paragraph 1

Draft legislative resolution

Proposal for a rejection

1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

1. Rejects the Commission proposal;

Or. en

Amendment 84

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Draft legislative resolution

Paragraph 1

Draft legislative resolution

Proposal for a rejection

1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

1. Rejects the Commission Proposal;

Or. fr

Amendment 85

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Ernő Schaller-Baross

Proposal for a directive

Title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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

repealing Directives (EU) 2022/2464 and (EU) 2024/1760 as regards certain corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements

(Text with EEA relevance)

Or. en

Amendment 86

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) In its Communication of 11 February 2025 entitled ‘A simpler and faster Europe: Communication on implementation and simplification’,2 the European Commission set out a vision for an implementation and simplification agenda that delivers fast and visible improvements for people and business on the ground. This requires more than an incremental approach and the Union must take bold action to achieve this goal. The Commission, the European Parliament, the Council, Member States’ authorities at all levels and stakeholders need to work together to streamline and simplify EU, national and regional rules and implement policies more effectively.

(1) In its Communication of 11 February 2025 entitled ‘A simpler and faster Europe: Communication on implementation and simplification’,2 the European Commission set out a vision for a so-called implementation and simplification agenda which is leading to unpredictability and legal uncertainty by rolling back recently legislated legal obligations under the guise of reducing the administrative burden. The consequences of such an agenda will have rippling effects, with increasing political risks, particularly for first movers. In order to safeguard the ambition of the current legal acquis, it is important to oppose such measures.

__________________

2 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 11 February 2025, ‘A simpler and faster Europe: Communication on implementation and simplification’, COM/2025/47 final.

Or. fr

Amendment 87

Angelika Niebler, Christian Doleschal, Stefan Köhler, Markus Ferber, Andrea Wechsler, Andreas Schwab, Christine Schneider, Ralf Seekatz, David McAllister, Oliver Schenk, Daniel Caspary, Norbert Lins, Sabine Verheyen, Christian Ehler, Isabelle Le Callennec, Laurent Castillo, François-Xavier Bellamy, Christophe Gomart, Lukas Mandl, Céline Imart, Verena Mertens, Marion Walsmann, Angelika Winzig

Proposal for a directive

Recital 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(1) Mario Draghi highlighted in his report on “The Future of European Competitiveness” the necessity for Europe to establish a regulatory framework that promotes both competitiveness and resilience and reduces costs. He specifically pointed out the burdens and compliance costs imposed by the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). In its Communication of 11 February 2025 entitled ‘A simpler and faster Europe: Communication on implementation and simplification’,2 the European Commission set out a vision for an implementation and simplification agenda that delivers fast and visible improvements for people and business on the ground. This requires more than an incremental approach and the Union must take bold action to achieve this goal. The Commission, the European Parliament, the Council, Member States’ authorities at all levels and stakeholders need to work together to streamline and simplify EU, national and regional rules and implement policies more effectively.

__________________

Or. en

Amendment 88

Adrián Vázquez Lázara, Maravillas Abadía Jover

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) In the context of the Commission’s commitment to reduce reporting burdens and enhance competitiveness, it is necessary to amend Directives 2006/43/EC3 , 2013/34/EU4 , (EU) 2022/24645 and (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council6 , whilst maintaining the policy objectives of the European Green Deal7 , and the Sustainable Finance Action Plan8 .

(2) In the context of the Commission’s commitment to reduce reporting burdens and enhance competitiveness, it is necessary to amend Directives 2006/43/EC3 2013/34/EU4 , (EU) 2022/24645 and (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council6 , whilst maintaining the policy objectives of the European Green Deal7 , and the Sustainable Finance Action Plan8 in line with the profound transformation of the EU's economic and structural policies proposed by the Draghi and Letta Reports to strengthen the single market and ensure competitive growth in the global arena.

__________________

3 Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (OJ L 157, 9.6.2006, p. 87, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2006/43/oj).

4 Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2013/34/oj).

5 Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting (OJ L 322, 16.12.2022, p. 15, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/2464/oj).

6 Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859 (OJ L, 2024/1760, 5.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1760/oj).

7 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 11 December 2019, ‘The European Green Deal’, COM/2019/640 final.

8 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 8 March 2018, ‘Action Plan: Financing Sustainable Growth’, COM/2018/097 final.

Or. en

Amendment 89

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Ernő Schaller-Baross

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) In the context of the Commission’s commitment to reduce reporting burdens and enhance competitiveness, it is necessary to amend substantially Directives 2006/43/EC3 , 2013/34/EU4 , (EU) 2022/24645 and (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council6 .

__________________

Or. en

Amendment 90

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) In the context of the Commission’s commitment to reduce reporting burdens and enhance competitiveness, it is necessary to amend Directives 2006/43/EC3, 2013/34/EU4, (EU) 2022/24645 and (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council6, whilst maintaining the policy objectives of the European Green Deal7, and the Sustainable Finance Action Plan8.

(2) In the context of the Commission’s commitment to reduce reporting burdens and enhance competitiveness, the Commission has declared it necessary to amend Directives 2006/43/EC3 , 2013/34/EU4 , (EU) 2022/24645 and (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council6 , without conducting any impact assessment and limiting public consultation to a closed-door stakeholder event;

__________________

Or. fr

Amendment 91

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

__________________

Or. en

Amendment 92

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) Article 26a(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC requires Member States to ensure that statutory auditors and audit firms carry out the assurance of sustainability reporting in compliance with limited assurance standards to be adopted by the Commission. Article 26a(3) of that Directive requires the Commission to adopt those standards by 1 October 2026. Undertakings have raised concerns on the work carried out by the assurance providers and have expressed the need for flexibility in addressing specific risks and critical issues identified in the areas of sustainability assurance. To enable the Commission to take account of those concerns, it should be given more flexibility in adopting those standards. In any case, the Commission will issue targeted assurance guidelines by 2026 that clarify the necessary procedures that assurance providers are to perform as part of their limited assurance engagement before adopting the standards by delegated act.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 93

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) Article 26a(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC requires Member States to ensure that statutory auditors and audit firms carry out the assurance of sustainability reporting in compliance with limited assurance standards to be adopted by the Commission to adopt those standards by 1 October 2026. Undertakings have raised concerns on the work carried out by the assurance providers and have expressed the need for flexibility in addressing specific risks and critical issues identified in the areas of sustainability assurance. To enable the Commission to take account of those concerns, it should be given more flexibility in adopting those standards. For this reason, instead of standards, the Commission will issue non-binding instructions, which indicate the essence of reporting while providing an appropriate buffer of discretion for Member States and entities.

Or. en

Amendment 94

Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Chloé Ridel, Ana Catarina Mendes, Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Kathleen Van Brempt, Eric Sargiacomo, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Estelle Ceulemans, Francisco Assis, Brando Benifei, Mohammed Chahim, Victor Negrescu, Evelyn Regner

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) Article 26a(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC requires Member States to ensure that statutory auditors and audit firms carry out the assurance of sustainability reporting in compliance with limited assurance standards to be adopted by the Commission. Article 26a(3) of that Directive requires the Commission to adopt those standards by 1 October 2026. Undertakings have raised concerns on the work carried out by the assurance providers and have expressed the need for flexibility in addressing specific risks and critical issues identified in the areas of sustainability assurance. The lack of harmonised assurance standards is contributing to the problems experienced by undertakings, and it is therefore of the utmost urgency for the Commission to adopt a suitable delegated act.

Or. en

Amendment 95

Axel Voss, Radan Kanev

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Justification

Companies need legal certainty. Flexibility in addressing specific risks does not mean flexibility on when the delegated acts are coming.

Amendment 96

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3) Article 26a(1) of Directive 2006/43/EC requires Member States to ensure that statutory auditors and audit firms carry out the assurance of sustainability reporting in compliance with limited assurance standards to be adopted by the Commission. Article 26a(3) of that Directive requires the Commission to adopt those standards by 1 October 2026. Undertakings have raised concerns on the work carried out by the assurance providers and have expressed the need for flexibility in addressing specific risks and critical issues identified in the areas of sustainability assurance. To enable the Commission to take account of those concerns, it should be given more flexibility in adopting those standards. In any case, the Commission will issue guidelines for limited assurance engagement by 2026 that clarify the necessary procedures that assurance providers are to perform as part of their limited assurance engagement before adopting the standards by delegated act.

Or. en

Justification

Companies have pointed to the absence of guidelines on limited assurance as a reason for high costs of compliance with the CSRD obligations, due to differences of interpretation. Guidelines will be able to provide more indications and stability in the auditing process.

Amendment 97

Proposal for a directive

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) Article 26a(3), second subparagraph, of Directive 2006/43/EC empowers the Commission to adopt standards for reasonable assurance by 1 October 2028, following an assessment of feasibility. To avoid an increase in costs of assurance for undertakings, the Commission should be afforded more discretion to define when such standards for reasonable assurance should be adopted. In order to limit both costs and overcompliance, it should be clarified that reasonable assurance should not be required from an undertaking with an average of fewer than 500 employees during the financial year.

Or. en

Amendment 98

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) Article 26a(3), second subparagraph, of Directive 2006/43/EC empowers the Commission to adopt standards for reasonable assurance by 1 October 2028, following an assessment of feasibility. To avoid an increase in costs of assurance for undertakings and to take into account the lessons of the first years of reporting, the requirement to adopt such standards for reasonable assurance should be extended to, at the earliest, 1 October 2030.

Or. en

Justification

We are keeping the reasonable assurance audit level because we shouldn’t create a discrepancy between financial and non-financial audit. That does not mean we do not agree to the relaxing of auditing (via guidelines for limited assurance and delayed entry into force of reasonable assurance) but, in the long run, we believe the European Commission should adopt reasonable assurance standards and assess when they should be applied.

Amendment 99

Proposal for a directive

Recital 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4a) The assurance standards alone will not ensure uniform application. In order to create a level playing field for the undertakings falling under sustainability reporting obligations, it is important to guarantee equal treatment of undertakings, regardless of the Member State in which the process takes place or the auditor or audit firm is engaged. Therefore the Commission should provide guidance for auditors and audit firms, in order to avoid compliance requirements going beyond the provisions set out in this legislation and the relevant delegated acts. In addition, the Commission should provide guidance for undertakings falling under the sustainability reporting obligations in order to facilitate the auditing process for these undertakings

Or. en

Amendment 100

Proposal for a directive

Recital 4 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4b) Article 34 of Directive 2013/34/EU sets out certain requirements for the assurance of sustainability reporting. To reduce the cost of assurance, further measures are needed to encourage a more competitive market for sustainability reporting assurance. The option to allow independent assurance services providers to conduct sustainability reporting assurance should be made mandatory in all Member States. The entity used to provide assurance of the undertaking’s sustainability reporting and disclosures should not be used to carry out other statutory audits for the same undertaking, and when more than one audit firm is used by an undertaking, at least one entity appointed should have a total market share in the EU of no more than 10%. Finally the assurance report referred to in Article 34, paragraph 6 of Directive 2013/34/EU should include the fees incurred for the assurance, in order to provide greater transparency in the assurance market for sustainability reporting.

Or. en

Amendment 101

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. fr

Justification

Unilaterally removing about 80% of the enterprises currently covered by the CSRD is an unfounded move. It punishes frontrunners who have already put in place extensive sustainability measures and threatens the many new jobs and small enterprises that have been created around sustainability reporting. Even the ECB’s opinion on the Omnibus proposal advocates that medium-large companies with over 500 employees should remain within the scope of the CSRD.

Amendment 102

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 103

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Ernő Schaller-Baross

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 104

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 105

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 106

Henrik Dahl

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 107

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 108

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5) Article 19a(1) of Directive 2013/34/EU requires large undertakings and small and medium-sized undertakings with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market, excluding micro-undertakings, to prepare and publish a sustainability statement at individual level. To reduce the reporting burden on undertakings, the obligation to prepare and publish a sustainability statement at individual level should be reduced. Large undertakings with an average of more than 1000 employees during the financial year should report in accordance with sustainability reporting standards. An intermediate category is introduced for large undertakings with an average number of employees during the financial year that is more than 500, but fewer than 1 000 (hereinafter “medium-large undertakings). These medium-large undertakings should report in accordance with simplified sustainability reporting standards, to be developed and adopted by the Commission, through a subset of the existing ESRS, with a delegated act no later than 12 months after entry into force of this Directive. Considering that for an undertaking to be large it has to exceed two out of the three criteria in Article 3(4) of Directive 2013/34/EU, this means that to be subject toto the reporting requirements an undertakings must have an average of more than 1000 or 500 employees, respectively, during the financial year and either a net turnover above EUR 50 million or a balance sheet total above EUR 25 million. The simplified sustainability reporting standards for medium-large undertakings should be proportionate and relevant to the capacities and characteristics of such undertakings, to the scale and complexity of their activities, to the associated environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks and opportunities, while ensuring alignments with reporting requirements needed by investors, banks, insurers and financial actors.

Or. en

Justification

A three tier approach with very low requirements for companies between 500 and 1 000 employees would be beneficial for the European economy, as it would align with the previous scope of the NFRD, would bring in companies that were already preparing their sustainability report under the CSRD, would help to streamline requirements with other financial regulations and would create, for high-growth companies, create a phasing-in of reporting requirements before they outgrow the 1000 employees limit.

Amendment 109

Proposal for a directive

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) A balance needs to be found between the objectives of data generation and reduction of administrative burden. Sustainability reporting, including the information referred to in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council9 , of large undertakings with an average of more than 1000 employees during the financial year is indispensable to understand the transition to a climate-neutral economy. In the light of the balance to be found between the objectives of data generation and reduction of administrative burden, large undertakings within the new scope for sustainability reporting that have a net turnover not exceeding EUR 450 000 000 during the financial year should be able to disclose information referred to in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 in a more flexible way. The Commission should be empowered to set out rules supplementing the reporting regime for those undertakings. It should in particular be clarified that the Commission is empowered to specify the reporting regime for activities that are only partially taxonomy aligned.

deleted

__________________

9 Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (OJ L 198, 22.6.2020, p. 13, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/852/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 110

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) In the light of deregulation needs resulting from the economic situation of the European Union and geopolitical conditions, undertakings within the new scope for sustainability reporting that have a net turnover not exceeding EUR 2 billion during the financial year should be able to disclose information referred to in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 in a more flexible way. The Commission should not be empowered to set out binding rules supplementing the reporting regime for those undertakings. Reporting obligations, as an additional administrative burden, reduce competitiveness and freedom of economic activity and therefore should be imposed only in extraordinary situations, both due to the protected good and the scale of the impact of the activity.

__________________

Or. en

Amendment 111

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Ernő Schaller-Baross

Proposal for a directive

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) A balance needs to be found between the objectives of meaningful data generation and reduction of administrative burden. Sustainability reporting, including the information referred to in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council9 , of large undertakings with an average of more than 10000 employees during the financial year is indispensable to understand the transition to a climate-neutral economy. In the light of the objective of reduction of administrative burden, large undertakings within the new scope for sustainability reporting that have a net turnover not exceeding EUR 1 500 000 000 during the financial year should be able to disclose information referred to in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 in a more flexible way. The Commission should be empowered to set out rules supplementing the reporting regime for those undertakings. It should in particular be clarified that the Commission is empowered to specify the reporting regime for activities that are only partially taxonomy aligned.

__________________

Or. en

Amendment 112

Proposal for a directive

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) A balance needs to be found between the objectives of data generation and reduction of administrative burden. Sustainability reporting, including the information referred to in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council9 , of large undertakings with an average of more than 1000 employees during the financial year is indispensable to understand the transition to a climate-neutral economy. In the light of the balance to be found between the objectives of data generation and reduction of administrative burden, large undertakings within the new scope for sustainability reporting that have a net turnover not exceeding EUR 5000 employees and a net turnover of more than EUR 1.5 billion during the financial year should be able to disclose information referred to in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 in a more flexible way. The Commission should be empowered to set out rules supplementing the reporting regime for those undertakings. It should in particular be clarified that the Commission is empowered to specify the reporting regime for activities that are only partially taxonomy aligned.

__________________

Or. en

Amendment 113

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) A balance needs to be found between the objectives of data generation and reduction of administrative burden. Sustainability reporting, including the information referred to in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council9 , of large undertakings with an average of more than 1000 employees during the financial year is indispensable to understand the transition to a climate-neutral economy. In the light of the balance to be found between the objectives of data generation and reduction of administrative burden, large undertakings within the new scope for sustainability reporting should be able to disclose information on their operating expenditure referred to in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 in a more flexible way. The Commission should be empowered to set out rules supplementing the reporting regime for those undertakings. It should in particular be clarified that the Commission is empowered to specify the reporting regime for activities that are only partially taxonomy aligned.

__________________

Or. en

Justification

Taxonomy is a useful tool for investors - although not perfect, delegated acts will modify technical details and simplify requirements for companies. Creating a voluntary taxonomy within the scope of CSRD would be counterproductive. However, we could alleviate a third of the burden imposed on company by removing the necessity to disclose information on their opex, which is deemed least important by investors.

Amendment 114

Billy Kelleher, Morten Løkkegaard

Proposal for a directive

Recital 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6a) In order to reduce the disproportionate reporting burden on companies that are already undertaking substantial efforts to minimise their environmental and climate impact, it should be established as a general principle that the same information shall only be reported once. Companies that can demonstrate outstanding environmental performance in accordance with Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2024 amending Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU as regards empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and through better information, and have had such performance independently verified by a third party, should not be subject to additional reporting requirements concerning the same matters. The same should apply to companies/organisations that have obtained other forms of third-party verification covering all or parts of their activities or products, where relevant.

Or. en

Amendment 115

Mario Mantovani

Proposal for a directive

Recital 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6a) In the absence of legislative action on European banking supervision legislation, and specifically on the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD) and the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR), the administrative burden for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that the Omnibus proposal seeks to simplify would remain largely unchanged. However, those undertakings would continue to be required to provide ESG/ESRS information to the credit system in order to meet the obligations imposed on the financial sector by the supervisory framework.

Or. it

Justification

The system needs to be rational and if we choose to simplify and harmonise standards, we must extend this simplification to other legislation that calls for sustainability reporting.

Amendment 116

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) Article 1(3) of Directive 2013/34/EU specifies that credit institutions and insurance undertakings that are large undertakings or small and medium-size undertakings – excluding micro-undertakings – with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market are subject to the sustainability reporting requirements set out in that Directive, regardless of their legal form. Considering that the scope of individual sustainability reporting should be reduced to large undertakings with an average of more than 1000 employees during the financial year, that reduction in scope should also apply to credit institutions and insurance undertakings.

deleted

Or. fr

Justification

Well-calibrated reporting is vital for market participants to understand and price sustainability-related financial risks. The absence of this information could lead to systemic risks affecting financial stability. Mid-large insurance undertakings should therefore remain within the scope of the CSRD, as agreed in the recent revision of Solvency II, to reduce their exposure to systemic risks related to sustainability factors.

Amendment 117

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) Article 1(3) of Directive 2013/34/EU specifies that credit institutions and insurance undertakings that are large undertakings or small and medium-size undertakings – excluding micro-undertakings – with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market are subject to the sustainability reporting requirements set out in that Directive, regardless of their legal form. Considering that the scope of individual sustainability reporting should be reduced to undertakings with an average of more than 10 000 employees during the financial year, and either a net turnover above EUR 2 billion or a balance sheet total above EUR 500 million, that reduction in scope should also apply to credit institutions and insurance undertakings.

Or. en

Amendment 118

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) Article 1(3) of Directive 2013/34/EU specifies that credit institutions and insurance undertakings that are large undertakings or small and medium-size undertakings – excluding micro-undertakings – with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market are subject to the sustainability reporting requirements set out in that Directive, regardless of their legal form. Considering that the scope of individual sustainability reporting should be reduced to undertakings with an average of more than 5000 employees and a net turnover of more than EUR 1.5 billion during the financial year, that reduction in scope should also apply to credit institutions and insurance undertakings. Moreover, and in order to ensure a level playing field, the applicable thresholds should not differ based on whether undertakings are established in or outside the Union.

Or. en

Amendment 119

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Ernő Schaller-Baross

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) Article 1(3) of Directive 2013/34/EU specifies that credit institutions and insurance undertakings that are large undertakings or small and medium-size undertakings – excluding micro-undertakings – with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market are subject to the sustainability reporting requirements set out in that Directive, regardless of their legal form. Considering that the scope of individual sustainability reporting should be reduced to large undertakings with an average of more than 10000 employees during the financial year, that reduction in scope should also apply to credit institutions and insurance undertakings.

Or. en

Amendment 120

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 121

Proposal for a directive

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) The European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) established by the EFSF Framework Agreement is subject to the sustainability reporting requirements set out in Directive 2013/34/EU, although it is exempted from the sustainability reporting regime set out in Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council10 pursuant to Article 8 of that Directive. Despite it being a large undertaking incorporated in a legal form listed in Annex I to Directive 2013/34/EU, the EFSF has a mandate - i.e. to safeguard financial stability in the Union by providing temporary financial assistance to Member States whose currency is the euro – that is largely similar to the one of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which is not subject to sustainability reporting requirements. For the EFSF to benefit from the same treatment as the ESM as regards sustainability reporting, and for consistency with the exemption regime provided by Directive 2004/109/EC, the EFSF should be exempted from the regime on sustainability reporting provided by Directive 2013/34/EU.

deleted

__________________

10 Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonization of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC (OJ L 39, 31.12.2004, p. 38, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2004/109/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 122

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9) [...]

deleted

Or. fr

Justification

According to the ECB opinion on the Omnibus proposal, the current lack of availability, quality, granularity, comparability and transparency of ESG data is a major challenge. Simplification must not restrict data collection for risk management or impede supervision. Furthermore, the voluntary SME standard was developed for companies with fewer than 250 employees and has not been tested for larger companies. The Draghi report recommended using the listed SME standard, not the voluntary SME standard.

Amendment 123

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9) Article 19a(3) of Directive 2013/34/EU requires undertakings to report information about the undertaking’s own operations and about its value chain. It is necessary to eliminate the reporting burden for undertakings in the value chain that are not required to report on their sustainability. The reporting undertaking, for the purposes of reporting sustainability information at individual or at consolidated level, as required by Directive 2013/34/EU, and without prejudice to Union requirements to conduct a due diligence process, should therefore not seek to obtain from undertakings established in or outside of the Union in its value chain that have up to 10 000 employees and either a net turnover above EUR 2 billion or a balance sheet total above EUR 500 million on average during the financial year any information that goes beyond the information specified in the standards for voluntary use by undertakings that are not required to report on their sustainability. Undertakings reporting on their value chain in accordance with those limitations should be deemed to comply with the obligation to report on their sustainability. For that purpose, the Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act to provide for sustainability reporting instructions for voluntary use by undertakings that are not required to report on their sustainability. Those instructions should be proportionate to, and relevant for, the capacities and the characteristics of those undertakings and to the scale and complexity of their activities, should be simple and understandable, without introducing additional regulatory burdens or costs. Those instructions should also specify, where possible, the structure to be used to present that information.

Or. en

Amendment 124

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 125

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9) Article 19a(3) of Directive 2013/34/EU requires undertakings to report information about the undertaking’s own operations and about its value chain. To reach closer alignment with the criteria used to define the terminology used in Directive (EU) 2024/1760, the notion of ‘value chain’ should be replaced by ‘chain of activities’. It is necessary to reduce the reporting burden for undertakings in the chain of activities that are not required to report on their sustainability. The reporting undertaking, for the purposes of reporting sustainability information at individual or at consolidated level, as required by Directive 2013/34/EU, and without prejudice to Union requirements to conduct a due diligence process, should therefore not seek to obtain from undertakings established in or outside of the Union in its chain of activities that have up to 5000 employees and a net turnover of up to EUR 1.5 billion on average during the financial year any information that goes beyond the information specified in the standards for voluntary use by undertakings that are not required to report on their sustainability. Where not all the necessary information regarding their chain of activities is available, or such information is incomplete or subject to legal limitations, the undertakings should be allowed, without any time limitation, to explain the efforts made to obtain the necessary information about their chain of activities, the reasons why that information could not be obtained, and their plans to obtain such information in the future. Undertakings reporting on their chain of activities in accordance with those limitations should be deemed to comply with the obligation to report on their sustainability. Assurance providers should prepare their assurance opinion respecting the obligation on undertakings not to seek to obtain from undertakings in their chain of activities that have up to 5000 employees and a net turnover of up to EUR 1.5 billion on average during the financial year any information that goes beyond the information specified in the standards for voluntary use by undertakings that are not required to report on their sustainability. For that purpose, the Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act to provide for sustainability reporting standards for voluntary use by undertakings that are not required to report on their sustainability. Those standards should be proportionate to, and relevant for, the capacities and the characteristics of those undertakings and to the scale and complexity of their activities. Those standards should also effectively contribute to the undertakings’ compliance with their reporting obligations. Those standards should also specify, where possible, the structure to be used to present that information.

Or. en

Amendment 126

Maravillas Abadía Jover, Adrián Vázquez Lázara

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 127

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9) Article 19a of Directive 2013/34/EU requires undertakings to report information about the undertaking’s own operations and about its value chain. It is necessary to provide clarity for undertakings in the value chain that are not required to report on their sustainability. In particular, it should be clarified that Article 19a does not constitute a requirement to obtain information systematically from every entity in an undertaking's value chain. Information requests should be targeted and take into account whether there is a reasonable indication of sustainability risks, or the information is necessary to allow the undertaking to report accurately and comprehensively. Where possible, the reporting undertaking should prioritise readily-available sources, adopt a risk-based approach and ensure that any requests for information are proportionate to the requirements of Article 19a, as well as the size and capacity of the entity from which information is requested. Reporting undertakings should not issue generalised and untargeted questionnaires where there is no indication of sustainability risks.

Or. en

Amendment 128

Lukas Mandl

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9) Article 19a(3) of Directive 2013/34/EU requires undertakings to report information about the undertaking’s own operations and about its value chain. It is necessary to reduce the reporting burden for undertakings in the value chain that are not required to report on their sustainability. The reporting undertaking, for the purposes of reporting sustainability information at individual or at consolidated level, as required by Directive 2013/34/EU, and without prejudice to Union requirements to conduct a due diligence process, should be prohibited from requiring information from reporting undertakings established in or outside of the Union in its value chain that have up to 1000 employees on average during the financial year any information that goes beyond the information specified in the standards for voluntary use by undertakings that are not required to report on their sustainability. At the same time, undertakings in their value chain that have up to 1000 employees on average during the financial year should be given a statutory right to decline to provide information exceeding those limits. To ensure the effectiveness of that right and to avoid imposing a burden on smaller companies to proactively assess its applicability, reporting undertakings that request information beyond the established limits should be required to inform undertakings in their value chain – with an average of up to 1,000 employees during the financial year – of the additional information requested and of their statutory right to decline to provide it. To ensure proportionality, the scope of this 'value-chain cap' is limited in the following ways: First, it does not prohibit the voluntary sharing of information, including information commonly exchanged among undertakings within a given sector. Second, it does not affect any obligation – whether contractual or arising under Union or national law – to provide information falling within the scope of the value-chain cap. Third, the value-chain cap applies solely to information gathering for the purpose of reporting sustainability information as required by Directive 2013/34/EU. It does not affect Union requirements to conduct due diligence or to gather information for any other purpose, such as the reporting undertaking’s risk management. Undertakings reporting on their value chain in accordance with those limitations should be deemed to comply with the obligation to report on their sustainability. Assurance providers should prepare their assurance opinion respecting the obligation on undertakings not to seek to obtain from undertakings in their value chain that have up to 1000 employees on average during the financial year any information that goes beyond the information specified in the standards for voluntary use by undertakings that are not required to report on their sustainability. For that purpose, the Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act to provide for sustainability reporting standards for voluntary use by undertakings that are not required to report on their sustainability. Those standards should be proportionate to, and relevant for, the capacities and the characteristics of those undertakings and to the scale and complexity of their activities. Those standards should also specify, where possible, the structure to be used to present that information. As micro-enterprises are disproportionately burdened by reporting requirements relative to their size, information on an undertaking’s value chain should not be required to include information on micro-enterprises. Accordingly, Member States should ensure that companies do not seek to obtain such information from micro-enterprises within their value chain. This prohibition is limited to requests made for the purpose of reporting sustainability information pursuant to Directive 2013/34/EU, and does not affect, among other things, Union requirements to conduct due diligence processes.

Or. en

Amendment 129

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Justification

As mentioned, we create a three-tier approach with a midsize scope of 500 to 1 000 employees. We also reverse the approach for the value chain cap, so that large companies do not have to worry about the exact number of employees that its suppliers have and not risk anything by requesting information. Instead, it will be the companies under 500 employees which will be able to only disclose what is in the standards for voluntary use. We also precise that this does not impede to share sustainability information for other reasons than the CSRD, through contractual arrangements.

Amendment 130

Axel Voss, Radan Kanev

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Justification

In order to align the value chain concept of the CSRD and the chain of activities of the CSDDD, information on the value chain should follow a risk- based approach, focusing on high risk impacts and taking into account the size and capabilities of the company.

Amendment 131

Mario Mantovani

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. it

Justification

It is necessary to anchor to the VSME standard the level of information that companies falling within the scope of the directive may require from micro and SMEs, creating a fundamental guarantee for smaller operators that protects against any disproportionate red tape.

Amendment 132

Axel Voss, Radan Kanev

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9a) The value chain cap defined by the sustainability standards for voluntary use is necessary to reduce the trickle-down effect of the sustainability reporting requirements on smaller undertakings. The undertaking’s ability to obtain the necessary value chain information may however vary depending on various factors such as the undertaking’s contractual arrangements, the level of control that it exercises on the operations outside the consolidation scope and its buying power. The standards adopted by delegated acts should serve as templates to reduce the reporting burden for companies within the value chain, enabling them to report under a voluntary framework using the version appropriate to their size category. Companies within the value chain should be responsible for selecting and using the correct template, so that companies requesting information are not required to assess or map the size categories of all entities in their value chain. To enable large companies in scope to comply with their reporting requirements with sufficiency accuracy, to limit the use of proxy data which can be onerous for companies and to reduce the cost of buying data from third party aggregators, the sustainability standards for voluntary use should therefore recognise the proportionality of the different size categories of companies within the value chain.

Or. en

Amendment 133

Mario Mantovani

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9a) To reduce the administrative burden on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), it is important to prevent them from being subject to disproportionate and inconsistent requests for information. To ease the pressure on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) when it comes to meeting inconsistent demands from different large corporations with which they have business relationships, a unified and standardised information model needs to be developed. Given EFRAG’s important work towards setting the VSME standard, the VSME standard should be the upper limit of information that large companies may request from their SME business partners. All parties entering into relationships with SMEs, including banks, should be encouraged to adopt the VSME standard. In particular, European banking supervision legislation should also be included in the coordination of the European sustainability legislation, in the absence of which regulatory intervention would not translate into a corresponding saving of administrative burden for SMEs, which are required to provide information to the credit system in order to meet the obligations imposed on the financial sector by the supervisory framework.

Or. it

Justification

The system needs to be rational and if we choose to simplify and harmonise standards, we must extend this simplification to other legislation that calls for sustainability reporting.

Amendment 134

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9a) Sustainability reporting requirements should not oblige an undertaking to disclose information such as intellectual capital, intellectual property, know-how or the results of innovation that would qualify as a trade secrets as defined in Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The reporting requirements provided for in this amending Directive should therefore be without prejudice to Directive (EU) 2016/943.

Or. en

Justification

To bring clarity to companies on what information they could not disclose, we add a reference to the Trade Secrets Directive.

Amendment 135

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Raffaele Stancanelli

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9a) It is necessary to reduce the reporting burden for undertakings, therefore the scope should be limited to the chain of activities instead of the value chain. Undertaking should also not provide information that is already contained in a report in order to reduce overlaps between different reporting obligations.

Or. en

Amendment 136

Axel Voss, Radan Kanev

Proposal for a directive

Recital 9 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9b) Article 19a(1) and Article 29a(1) of Directive 2013/34/EU require undertakings to disclose information about five reporting areas: business model; policies, including due diligence processes implemented; the outcome of those policies; risks and risk management; and key performance indicators relevant to the business. Article 19a(1) of Directive 2013/34/EU does not contain explicit references to other reporting areas that users of information consider relevant, some of which align with disclosures included in international frameworks, including the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Disclosure requirements should be specified in sufficient detail to ensure that undertakings report information on their resilience in relation to risks related to sustainability matters. In addition to the reporting areas identified in Article 19a(1) and Article 29a(1) of Directive 2013/34/EU, undertakings should be required to disclose information about their business strategy and the resilience of the business model and strategy in relation to risks related to sustainability matters. They should also be required to disclose any plans they may have to ensure that their business model and strategy are compatible with the transition to a sustainable economy and with the objectives of limiting global warming to 1,5 °C in line with the Paris Agreement and achieving climate neutrality by 2050, as established in Regulation (EU) 2021/1119, with no or limited overshoot. It is especially important that plans related to the climate be based on the latest science, including Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and reports by the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change. Information disclosed in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 about the amount of capital expenditure (CapEx) or operating expenditure (OpEx) associated with taxonomy-aligned activities could support financial and investment plans related to such plans where appropriate. Undertakings should also be required to disclose whether and how their business model and strategy take account of the interests of stakeholders; any opportunities for the undertaking arising from sustainability matters; the implementation of the aspects of the business strategy which affect, or are affected by, sustainability matters; any sustainability targets set by the undertaking and the progress made towards achieving them; the role of the board and management with regard to sustainability matters; the principal actual and potential adverse impacts connected with the undertaking’s activities; and how the undertaking has identified the information that it reports on. Once the disclosure of elements, such as targets and the progress towards achieving them, is required, a separate requirement to disclose the outcomes of policies is no longer necessary. In order to avoid regulatory overlap between sectoral frameworks, companies subject to multiple requirements to prepare a climate transition plan—such as those under the Emissions Trading Scheme (Directive 2003/87/EC), the Industrial Emissions Directive (Directive 2010/75/EU), or the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (Regulation 2019/2088) should be considered as having fulfilled the disclosure obligations under this Directive, provided that the transition plan submitted under those sectoral regulations aim at limiting global warming in line with the Paris Agreement and achieving climate neutrality by 2050. In such cases, companies should include a clear reference to the relevant transition plan in the management report prepared in accordance with this Directive.

Or. en

Justification

Amends Recital 30 of the CSRD. Companies should not need to report several transition plans under several frameworks. We need to apply the once only principle.

Amendment 137

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(10) Article 29c(1) of Directive 2013/34/EU allows small and medium-sized undertakings with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market, small and non-complex institutions and captive re(insurance) undertakings, to report sustainability information in accordance with the limited set of standards to be adopted by the Commission. Considering that small and medium-sized undertakings with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market should be excluded from sustainability reporting, the empowerment for the Commission to adopt delegated acts to provide for sustainability reporting standards for those small and medium-sized undertakings should be removed.

deleted

Or. fr

Justification

The ECB stresses that voluntary reporting standards have significant drawbacks, including self-selection bias, greenwashing risk, and lack of verification, leading to unreliable aggregate data. This could create system-wide issues for risk management and supervisory activities.

Amendment 138

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 139

Proposal for a directive

Recital 10 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(10a) Small and medium-sized undertakings which are not required to do sustainability reporting frequently do so on a voluntary basis, for instance in order to access financing and investment, to track internal sustainability goals, or simply as sustainability is a core value for their business. The existing voluntary standards for small and medium-sized enterprises are not fit for this purpose, in particular considering the change of scope of this Directive. As such the Commission should adopt a new delegated act containing sustainability reporting standards for voluntary use, compatible with the first set of sector-agnostic standards adopted in the Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2772 and take into account the requirements of related EU legislation, including Regulation 2021/1119, Regulation 2020/1818, Regulation 2019/2088, Regulation 2020/852, and the Pillar 3 disclosure requirements of the European Banking Authority. The delegated act should specify the information that concerned undertakings are to disclose about key metrics relevant for undertakings in all sectors, and their material impacts in order to facilitate the ability of large undertakings to prepare sustainability statements in line with standards specified in Article 29b to map likely adverse impacts in their value chain without necessarily directly engaging with each and every value chain actor.

Or. en

Amendment 140

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11) Article 19a(7) of Directive 2013/34/EU allows small and medium-sized undertakings with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market to opt out from sustainability reporting for the first two years of application of those requirements. Considering that small and medium-sized undertakings should be excluded from the sustainability reporting, the provision allowing for the two-year opt out should be removed.

deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 141

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 142

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 143

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 144

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Ernő Schaller-Baross

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 145

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12) Article 29a(1) of Directive 2013/34/EU requires parent undertakings of large groups to prepare and publish a sustainability statement at consolidated level. To reduce the reporting burden on those parent undertakings, the scope of that obligation should be reduced. Parent undertakings of large groups with an average of more than 1000 employees, on a consolidated basis, during the financial year should report in accordance with sustainability reporting standards. Parent undertakings of large groups with an average number of employees during the financial year that is more than 500, but fewer than 1 000, employees, on a consolidated basis (hereinafter “medium-large groups”) should also report in accordance with the simplified sustainability reporting standards.

Or. en

Justification

As mentioned, we create a three tier approach with a midsize scope of 500 to 1 000 employees. This approach is also applied to parent undertakings.

Amendment 146

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 147

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12a) Directive (EU) 2022/2464 requires undertakings in scope to report sustainability information according to mandatory European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). In July 2023 the Commission adopted a first set of ESRS. To deliver swiftly on the simplification and streamlining of sustainability reporting the Commission will adopt a delegated act as soon as possible, and at the latest six months after the entry into force of this directive, to revise the first set of ESRS to substantially reform the standards by: (i) removing datapoints deemed least important for general purpose sustainability reporting, (ii), prioritising quantitative indicators over narrative text, while (iii) still be respecting the application of the double-materiality principle, (iv) streamlining the new set of ESRS and simplified ESRS with other European financial regulations, such as Directive (EU) 2019/2088, and prudential regulations and (v) not downgrading the requirements to a lower level than international standards.

Or. en

Justification

The simplification of ESRS via Delegated Act must be framed to make the intentions of the simplification clearer.

Amendment 148

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12b) Directive (EU) 2022/2464 requires undertakings in scope to report sustainability information according to mandatory European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). To simplify the demands and lower the burden put on medium-large undertakings of more than 500 employees but less than 1000, by [12 months following the adoption of this amending Directive], the Commission will adopt a delegated act to specify the simplified sustainability reporting standards (hereinafter ‘S-ESRS’). These S-ESRS shall encompass a subset of ESRS, with a target of a third of the data points asked to large undertakings in the ESRS, while fully respecting the double-materiality principle and being streamlined with other European financial regulations, such as Directive (EU) 2019/2088, and prudential regulations.

Or. en

Justification

As mentioned, we create a three-tier approach with a midsize scope of 500 to 1 000 employees. These medium-large undertakings will report under simplified ESRS, hereinafter S-ESRS. The content of these S-ESRS should be specified in the proposal to create adapted reporting requirements to the companies' size.

Amendment 149

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12c) Article 29a(1) of Directive 2013/34/EU requires parent undertakings of large groups to prepare and publish a sustainability statement at consolidated level. To better clarify the demands made to financial holding undertaking, these are exempted from complying with the obligations set out in this directive. Likewise, to decrease the administrative burden on undertakings, for recent acquisitions of subsidiaries that are not reporting yet, parent undertaking will benefit of a 24 months transition period.

Or. en

Amendment 150

Proposal for a directive

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13) Article 29b(1), third subparagraph, Directive 2013/34/EU empowers the Commission to adopt sector-specific reporting standards by way of delegated acts, with a first set of such standards to be adopted by 30 June 2026. To avoid an increase in the number of prescribed datapoints that undertakings should report, that empowerment should be removed.

(13) Article 29b(1), third subparagraph, Directive 2013/34/EU empowers the Commission to adopt sector-specific reporting standards by way of delegated acts, with a first set of such standards to be adopted by 30 June 2026. Sector-specific standards are essential to support undertakings materiality assessment. Currently, there are several voluntary sector-specific standards, which adds to complexity for companies. Common EU-sector-specific standards will contribute to a functioning Single Market and ensure reliability and comparability of data. To avoid an increase in the number of prescribed datapoints that undertakings should report, the Commission should ensure that the information specified by those sustainability reporting standards is proportionate to the scale of the risks and impacts related to sustainability matters specific to each sector. The Commission should also take into account that not all activities within such sectors are necessarily associated with high sustainability risks or impacts. The Commission should ensure that sector-specific standards do not lead to additional burden for undertakings or an obligation to report on an excessive amount of data points. The Commission should take duly into account that the purpose of sector-specific standards is to facilitate targeted and simple corporate sustainability reporting, resulting in high-quality data sets.

Or. en

Amendment 151

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13) Article 29b(1), third subparagraph, Directive 2013/34/EU empowers the Commission to adopt sector-specific reporting standards by way of delegated acts, with a first set of such standards to be adopted by 30 June 2026. To avoid an increase in the number of prescribed datapoints that undertakings should report, that empowerment should be removed.

Or. en

Justification

To help companies assess which sectors are material or not and help them identify the right risks, opportunities and impacts, it is essential to have at least guidelines for sectors that need them. Sector-specific standards should only be adopted if deemed necessary, after the first three years of adoption of the guidelines.

Amendment 152

Axel Voss, Radan Kanev

Proposal for a directive

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13) Article 29b(1), third subparagraph, Directive 2013/34/EU empowers the Commission to adopt sector-specific reporting standards by way of delegated acts, with a first set of such standards to be adopted by 30 June 2026. To avoid an increase in the number of prescribed datapoints that undertakings should report, that empowerment should be removed.

Or. en

Amendment 153

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) Article 29b(4) of Directive 2013/34/EU requires sustainability reporting standards to not specify disclosures requiring undertakings to obtain from small and medium-sized undertakings in their value chain any information that goes beyond the information to be disclosed pursuant to the sustainability reporting standards for small and medium-sized undertakings with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market. Considering that small and medium-sized undertakings with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market should be excluded from sustainability reporting, and in order to reduce the reporting burden for undertakings in the value chain that are not required to report on their sustainability, the sustainability reporting standards should not specify disclosures requiring undertakings to obtain from undertakings in their value chain that have up to 1000 employees on average during the financial year any information that goes beyond the information to be disclosed pursuant to the sustainability reporting standards for voluntary use by undertakings that are not required to report on their sustainability.

deleted

Or. fr

Justification

Restreindre les informations que les grandes entreprises peuvent demander à leurs partenaires commerciaux et sous-traitants réduira considérablement leur capacité à comprendre et à traiter les principaux impacts, risques et opportunités en matière de durabilité dans leur chaîne de valeur. La BCE souligne que des données fiables, cohérentes et comparables sont une condition préalable à l’évaluation des risques financiers liés aux facteurs de durabilité. Or, il existe actuellement un manque de disponibilité, de qualité, de granularité, de comparabilité et de transparence des données ESG. Le champ d’application initial de la collecte de données dans la CSRD est essentiel pour combler ces lacunes en matière de données, tant pour les politiques publiques que pour l’évaluation et le suivi des risques. La norme volontaire pour les PME ne couvre pas les informations sur les impacts et les actions des entreprises, leur exposition à des chaînes de valeur à haut risque, les données importantes liées aux risques climatiques et aux émissions de gaz à effet de serre, ni la durabilité sociale au-delà des données de base sur la main-d’œuvre. Elle ne suffit donc pas à combler les lacunes existantes. En effet, le rapport Draghi a recommandé la norme applicable aux PME cotées en bourse plutôt que la norme de déclaration volontaire pour les PME.

Amendment 154

Proposal for a directive

Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 155

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen

Proposal for a directive

Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) Article 29b(4) of Directive 2013/34/EU requires sustainability reporting standards to not specify disclosures requiring undertakings to obtain from small and medium-sized undertakings in their chain of activities any information that goes beyond the information to be disclosed pursuant to the sustainability reporting standards for small and medium-sized undertakings with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market. Considering that small and medium-sized undertakings with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market should be excluded from sustainability reporting, and in order to reduce the reporting burden for undertakings in the chain of activities that are not required to report on their sustainability, the sustainability reporting standards should not specify disclosures requiring undertakings to obtain from undertakings in their value chain that have up to 10000 employees on average during the financial year any information.

Or. en

Amendment 156

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) Article 29b(4) of Directive 2013/34/EU requires sustainability reporting standards to not specify disclosures requiring undertakings to obtain from small and medium-sized undertakings in their value chain any information that goes beyond the information to be disclosed pursuant to the sustainability reporting standards for small and medium-sized undertakings with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market. Considering that small and medium-sized undertakings with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market should be excluded from sustainability reporting, and in order to reduce the reporting burden for undertakings in the value chain that are not required to report on their sustainability, the sustainability reporting should not specify disclosures requiring undertakings to obtain from undertakings in their value chain that have up to 10 000 employees and either a net turnover above EUR 2 billion or a balance sheet total above EUR 500 million on average during the financial year any information that goes beyond the information to be disclosed pursuant to the sustainability reporting instructions for voluntary use by undertakings that are not required to report on their sustainability.

Or. en

Amendment 157

Proposal for a directive

Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) Article 29b(4) of Directive 2013/34/EU requires sustainability reporting standards to not specify disclosures requiring undertakings to obtain from small and medium-sized undertakings in their value chain any information that goes beyond the information to be disclosed pursuant to the sustainability reporting standards for small and medium-sized undertakings with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market. Considering that small and medium-sized undertakings with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market should be excluded from sustainability reporting, and in order to reduce the reporting burden for undertakings in the chain of activities that are not required to report on their sustainability, the sustainability reporting standards should not specify disclosures requiring undertakings to obtain from undertakings in their chain of activities that have up to 5000 employees and a net turnover of up to EUR 1.5 billion on average during the financial year any information that goes beyond the information to be disclosed pursuant to the sustainability reporting standards for voluntary use by undertakings that are not required to report on their sustainability.

Or. en

Amendment 158

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) Article 29b(4) of Directive 2013/34/EU requires sustainability reporting standards to not specify disclosures requiring undertakings to obtain from small and medium-sized undertakings in their value chain any information that goes beyond the information to be disclosed pursuant to the sustainability reporting standards for small and medium-sized undertakings with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market. Considering that small and medium-sized undertakings with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market should be excluded from sustainability reporting, and in order to reduce the reporting burden for undertakings in the value chain that are not required to report on their sustainability, the sustainability reporting standards should not specify disclosures requiring undertakings to obtain from undertakings in their value chain that have up to 500 employees on average during the financial year any information that goes beyond the information to be disclosed pursuant to the sustainability reporting standards for voluntary use by undertakings that are not required to report on their sustainability.

Or. en

Justification

As mentioned, we create a three-tier approach with a midsize scope of 500 to 1 000 employees. This amendment reflects this approach on the value chain cap.

Amendment 159

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 14 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14a) Article 29b(4) of Directive 2013/34/EU requires sustainability reporting standards to take into account the difficulties undertakings may encounter in gathering information from actors throughout their value chain. In knowledge of recent attempts from third countries to block the sharing of data from non-EU countries to EU companies, Member States shall allow information required by this Directive, in exceptional cases where an undertaking in a non-EU third country could be sanctioned due to third-country legislation simply by transmitting sustainability data, to replace the information not provided by the undertaking of a non-EU third country by default values. This default value, which is calculated or drawn from secondary data, shall represent an estimation of the average value for an indicator, for a specific country and sector. When such default values are not available, Member States shall allow information not to be disclosed if there is a danger of sanctions due to third-country legislation.

Or. en

Justification

In light of recent attempts of foreign legislation to block the sharing of data from non-EU countries to Union companies, we believe there should be a way for companies to replace these data to default values, which are estimation of the average of an indicator for a given country and sector. When these default values are not available, companies should not be responsible for third country laws. This amendment therefore allows them to not disclose these information, if they could face sanctions.

Amendment 160

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) Article 29d of Directive 2013/34/EU requires undertakings subject to the requirements in Articles 19a and 29a of that Directive to prepare their management report, or consolidated management report, where applicable, in the electronic reporting format specified in Article 3 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/81511 and to mark up their sustainability reporting, including the disclosures provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council12 , in accordance with the electronic reporting format to be specified in that Delegated Regulation. To provide clarity to undertakings, it should be specified that until such rules on the marking up are adopted by way of that a Delegated Regulation, for the marking up of sustainability reporting is adopted, undertakings are should not be required to mark-up their sustainability reporting.

deleted

__________________

11 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/815 of 17 December 2018 supplementing Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards on the specification of a single electronic reporting format (OJ L 143, 29.5.2019, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2019/815/oj).

12 Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (OJ L 198, 22.6.2020, p. 13, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/852/oj).

Or. en

Amendment 161

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Raffaele Stancanelli

Proposal for a directive

Recital 15

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(15) Article 29d of Directive 2013/34/EU requires undertakings subject to the requirements in Articles 19a and 29a of that Directive to prepare their management report, or consolidated management report, where applicable, in the electronic reporting format specified in Article 3 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/81511 and to mark up their sustainability reporting, including the disclosures provided for in Article 8 of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council12 , in accordance with the electronic reporting format to be specified in that Delegated Regulation. To provide clarity to undertakings, undertakings are should not be required to mark-up their sustainability reporting.

__________________

Or. en

Amendment 162

Proposal for a directive

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 163

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Raffaele Stancanelli

Proposal for a directive

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 164

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16) Article 33(1) of Directive 2013/34/EU specifies that the members of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies of an undertaking have collective responsibility for ensuring that the following documents are drawn up and published in accordance with the requirements of that Directive. To provide flexibility do for undertakings and reduce their reporting burden, it should be specified that the collective responsibility of the members of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies of an undertaking for compliance with the requirements of Article 29d of that Directive as regards the digitalisation of the management report is limited to its publication in the single electronic format, including the marking up of the sustainability reporting therein. The liability of the members of the designated bodies should be assessed taking into account the individual circumstances of the breach of duty, according to the criterion of fault and an assessment of the degree of culpability, as well as the degree of nuisance of marking in the operation of the undertaking, within the limits freely determined by the Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 165

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 16 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16a) Article 34 of Directive 2013/34/EU specifies the audit requirements for auditing and assurance of sustainability reporting. To ensure that auditing requirements are lower for medium-large undertakings reporting with the sustainability reporting standards adopted pursuant to Article 29ba, these undertakings are exempted from the auditing requirements under Article 34(1)(aa) for the two first years of reporting and may, after these two years, only comply with the requirements of Article 34(1)(aa) every other year. Furthermore, medium-large undertakings will only need to apply the auditing requirements under Article (34)(1)(aa) on the quantitative indicators for their first report, before expending the auditing requirements to the entire report for the next ones.

Or. en

Justification

Audit requirements should be phased-in for the medium-large undertakings, so to considerably lower the cost of compliance. For this reason, we believe there should not be any auditing requirements for the two first years of reporting, and then a full reporting only happening every two years. Furthermore, the first report shall only be audited on quantitative data, before auditing qualitative data in the next reports.

Amendment 166

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. fr

Justification

As the threshold for coverage by the CSRD should not be raised, neither should the thresholds for third-country undertakings. The ECB opinion on the Omnibus I proposal recommends not amending the turnover thresholds for third-country undertakings.

Amendment 167

Proposal for a directive

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 168

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 169

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen

Proposal for a directive

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) Pursuant to Article 40a(1), fourth and fifth subparagraph of Directive 2013/34/EU, a subsidiary or a branch in the Union of a third-county undertaking that generates a net turnover of more than EUR 500 000 000 in the Union, is to publish and make accessible sustainability information at the group level of the third-country parent undertaking. To reach closer alignment with the criteria used to define which undertakings are in the scope of Directive (EU) 2024/1760, the net turnover threshold for the third-country undertaking should be raised from EUR 150 000 000 to EUR 1 000 000 000. For reasons of consistency and burden reduction, the size for a subsidiary undertaking and a branch to be in scope of Article 40a should be adjusted. The size of the subsidiary undertaking and for the branch should be raised from EUR 40 000 000 to EUR 1 000 000 000.

Or. en

Amendment 170

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 171

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(17) Pursuant to Article 40a(1), fourth and fifth subparagraph of Directive 2013/34/EU, a subsidiary in the Union of a third-county undertaking that generates a net turnover of more than EUR 150 million in the Union, or, in the absence of such subsidiary, a branch in the Union that generates a net turnover of more than EUR 40 million, is to publish and make accessible sustainability information at the group level of the third-country parent undertaking provided that at group level the third country undertaking generated a net turnover of more than EUR 150 million in the Union for each of the last two consecutive financial years . For reasons of consistency and burden reduction, the size for a subsidiary undertaking and a branch to be in scope of Article 40a should be adjusted. The size of the subsidiary undertaking should be that of a large undertaking, whilst the net turnover criteria for the branch should be raised from EUR 40 000 000 to EUR 50 000 000, to align with the net turnover threshold for large undertakings. As sustainability reporting standards set out in Article 29b will be simplified and in order to preserve a level playing-field between EU and non-EU companies, Article 40a shall incorporate obligations for third country groups to report under the standards set out in article 29b when they meet the following criteria: (i) a presence in the EU through at least a subsidiary, either large or (ii) in case there is no subsidiary, a branch with a net turnover of EUR 50 million to align with the net turnover threshold for large undertakings and (iii) the net turnover at group level of the ultimate parent exceeds EUR 150 million generated in the Union for each of the last two consecutive years.

Or. en

Justification

To preserve a level playing-field between EU and non-EU companies, we believe that the threshold of turnover should be lowered to EUR 150 million in the European Union to trigger a consolidated report under article 40(a) for third-country companies. Moreover, as the ESRS will be considerably simplified and as the European companies have to report under the ESRS for the worldwide activities, we propose to level the playing-field with third-country companies and have them report under the ESRS.

Amendment 172

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) Article 5(2), first subparagraph, of Directive (EU) 2022/2464 specifies the dates by which the Member States are to apply the sustainability reporting requirements set out in Directive 2013/34/EU, with different dates depending on the size of the undertaking concerned. Considering that the scope of the individual sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced to include only large undertakings with more than 1000 employees on average during the financial year, and that the scope of the consolidated sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced accordingly, the criteria for determining the dates of application should be adjusted, and the reference to small and medium-sized undertakings with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market should be removed.

deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 173

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) Article 5(2), first subparagraph, of Directive (EU) 2022/2464 specifies the dates by which the Member States are to apply the sustainability reporting requirements set out in Directive 2013/34/EU, with different dates depending on the size of the undertaking concerned. Considering that the scope of the individual sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced to include only undertakings with more than 10 000 employees and either a net turnover above EUR 2 billion or a balance sheet total above EUR 500 million on average during the financial year, and that the scope of the consolidated sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced accordingly, the criteria for determining the dates of application should be adjusted, and the reference to small and medium-sized undertakings with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market should be removed.

Or. en

Amendment 174

Proposal for a directive

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) Article 5(2), first subparagraph, of Directive (EU) 2022/2464 specifies the dates by which the Member States are to apply the sustainability reporting requirements set out in Directive 2013/34/EU, with different dates depending on the size of the undertaking concerned. Considering that the scope of the individual sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced to include only undertakings with more than 5000 employees and a net turnover of more than EUR 1.5 billion on average during the financial year, and that the scope of the consolidated sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced accordingly, the criteria for determining the dates of application should be adjusted, and the reference to small and medium-sized undertakings with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market should be removed.

Or. en

Amendment 175

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Ernő Schaller-Baross

Proposal for a directive

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) Article 5(2), first subparagraph, of Directive (EU) 2022/2464 specifies the dates by which the Member States are to apply the sustainability reporting requirements set out in Directive 2013/34/EU, with different dates depending on the size of the undertaking concerned. Considering that the scope of the individual sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced to include only large undertakings with more than 10000 employees on average during the financial year, and that the scope of the consolidated sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced accordingly, the criteria for determining the dates of application should be adjusted, and the reference to small and medium-sized undertakings with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market should be removed.

Or. en

Amendment 176

Proposal for a directive

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) Article 5(2), first subparagraph, of Directive (EU) 2022/2464 specifies the dates by which the Member States are to apply the sustainability reporting requirements set out in Directive 2013/34/EU, with different dates depending on the size of the undertaking concerned. Considering that the scope of the individual sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced to include only large undertakings, and that the scope of the consolidated sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced accordingly, the criteria for determining the dates of application should be adjusted, and the reference to small and medium-sized undertakings with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market should be removed.

Or. en

Amendment 177

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(18) Article 5(2), first subparagraph, of Directive (EU) 2022/2464 specifies the dates by which the Member States are to apply the sustainability reporting requirements set out in Directive 2013/34/EU, with different dates depending on the size of the undertaking concerned. Considering that the scope of the individual sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced to include only large undertakings with more than 500 employees on average during the financial year, and that the scope of the consolidated sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced accordingly, the criteria for determining the dates of application should be adjusted, and the reference to small and medium-sized undertakings with securities admitted to trading on an EU regulated market should be removed.

Or. en

Justification

As mentioned, we create a three-tier approach with a midsize scope of 500 to 1 000 employees. This amendment reflects this approach.

Amendment 178

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19) Article 5(2), third subparagraph, of Directive (EU) 2022/2464 specifies the dates by which the Member States are to apply the sustainability reporting requirements set out in Directive 2004/109/EC, with different dates depending on the size of the issuer concerned. Considering that the scope of the individual sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced to include only large undertakings with more than 1000 employees on average during the financial year, and that the scope of the consolidated sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced accordingly, the criteria for determining the dates of application should be adjusted, and the reference to small and medium-sized undertakings should be removed.

deleted

Or. fr

Amendment 179

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19) Article 5(2), third subparagraph, of Directive (EU) 2022/2464 specifies the dates by which the Member States are to apply the sustainability reporting requirements set out in Directive 2004/109/EC, with different dates depending on the size of the issuer concerned. Considering that the scope of the individual sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced to include only undertakings with more than 10 000 employees and either a net turnover above EUR 2 billion or a balance sheet total above EUR 500 million on average during the financial year, and that the scope of the consolidated sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced accordingly, the criteria for determining the dates of application should be adjusted, and the reference to small and medium-sized undertakings should be removed.

Or. en

Amendment 180

Proposal for a directive

Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19) Article 5(2), third subparagraph, of Directive (EU) 2022/2464 specifies the dates by which the Member States are to apply the sustainability reporting requirements set out in Directive 2004/109/EC, with different dates depending on the size of the issuer concerned. Considering that the scope of the individual sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced to include only undertakings with more than 5000 employees and a net turnover of more than EUR 1.5 billion on average during the financial year, and that the scope of the consolidated sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced accordingly, the criteria for determining the dates of application should be adjusted, and the reference to small and medium-sized undertakings should be removed.

Or. en

Amendment 181

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Ernő Schaller-Baross

Proposal for a directive

Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19) Article 5(2), third subparagraph, of Directive (EU) 2022/2464 specifies the dates by which the Member States are to apply the sustainability reporting requirements set out in Directive 2004/109/EC, with different dates depending on the size of the issuer concerned. Considering that the scope of the individual sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced to include only large undertakings with more than 10000 employees on average during the financial year, and that the scope of the consolidated sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced accordingly, the criteria for determining the dates of application should be adjusted, and the reference to small and medium-sized undertakings should be removed.

Or. en

Amendment 182

Proposal for a directive

Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19) Article 5(2), third subparagraph, of Directive (EU) 2022/2464 specifies the dates by which the Member States are to apply the sustainability reporting requirements set out in Directive 2004/109/EC, with different dates depending on the size of the issuer concerned. Considering that the scope of the individual sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced to include only large undertakings, and that the scope of the consolidated sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced accordingly, the criteria for determining the dates of application should be adjusted, and the reference to small and medium-sized undertakings should be removed.

Or. en

Amendment 183

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19) Article 5(2), third subparagraph, of Directive (EU) 2022/2464 specifies the dates by which the Member States are to apply the sustainability reporting requirements set out in Directive 2004/109/EC, with different dates depending on the size of the issuer concerned. Considering that the scope of the individual sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced to include only large undertakings with more than 500 employees on average during the financial year, and that the scope of the consolidated sustainability reporting requirements should be reduced accordingly, the criteria for determining the dates of application should be adjusted, and the reference to small and medium-sized undertakings should be removed.

Or. en

Justification

As mentioned, we create a three tier approach with a midsize scope of 500 to 1 000 employees. This amendment reflects this approach.

Amendment 184

Proposal for a directive

Recital 19 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19a) Reporting requirements are often complex and resource-intensive, while not always providing sufficient direct added value to the objectives of the directives. Key challenges include excessive narrative text, limited interoperability with global reporting standards, and repeated requests for the same data across multiple reporting obligations. Therefore, EFRAG should significantly streamline the ESRS by reducing the number of data points by at least half. EFRAG should also choose quantitative data points, as qualitative data points do hardly allow to compare ESRS engagements of undertakings.

Or. en

Amendment 185

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 19 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19a) In the context of this Directive and ongoing and future simplification initiatives, it is important to ensure coherence between the disclosure of information that undertakings must disclose under Directive (EU) 2022/2464 and the information that financial market participants need in order to comply with the obligations of Regulation (EU) 2019/2088. In addition, this Directive is without prejudice to other reporting obligations under European legislations, such as sectoral and financial services regulations.

Or. en

Justification

Simplification efforts should take into account the value chain of report that exists in Europe. Data is needed by investors, banks, insurers and financial institutions for their own reporting and as they need to know what are the elements characterising where they invest.

Amendment 186

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) Article 4(1) of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 prohibits Member States from introducing, in their national law, provisions within the field covered by the Directive laying down human rights and environmental due diligence obligations diverging from those laid down in Article 8(1) and (2), and Article 10(1) of that Directive. To ensure that Member States do not go beyond that Directive and to avoid the creation of a fragmented regulatory landscape resulting in legal uncertainty and unnecessary burden, the full harmonisation provisions of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 should be expanded to additional provisions regulating the core aspects of the due diligence process. That includes, in particular, the identification duty, the duties to address adverse impacts that have been or should have been identified, the duties to engage with stakeholders in certain cases, and the duty to provide for a complaints and notification mechanism. At the same time, Member States should be allowed to introduce more stringent or more specific provisions on other aspects, including to address emerging risks linked to new products or services.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 187

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Ernő Schaller-Baross, Raffaele Stancanelli

Proposal for a directive

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 188

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. fr

Justification

While the original scope of the CSDDD was an important first step in ensuring corporate accountability for human rights and the environment, it still diverged from the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Therefore, Member States’ ability to improve upon aspects of the Directive should not be further restricted.

Amendment 189

Axel Voss, Radan Kanev

Proposal for a directive

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 190

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) Article 4(1) of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 prohibits Member States from introducing, in their national law, provisions within the field covered by the Directive laying down human rights and environmental due diligence obligations diverging from those laid down in Article 8(1) and (2), and Article 10(1) of that Directive. To ensure that Member States do not go beyond by introducing regulations contrary to that Directive and to avoid the creation of a fragmented regulatory landscape resulting in legal uncertainty and unnecessary burden, the full harmonisation provisions of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 should be expanded to additional provisions regulating the core aspects of the due diligence process. That includes, in particular, the identification duty, the duties to address adverse impacts that have been or should have been identified, the duties to engage with stakeholders in certain cases, and the duty to provide for a complaints and notification mechanism. At the same time, Member States should be allowed to introduce specific or less stringent provisions adapting the due diligence obligations to local circumstances, the macroeconomic situation and the economic policy of the Member State, in particular in view of the characteristics of trade and cross-border cooperation.

Or. en

Amendment 191

Lara Wolters, René Repasi, Chloé Ridel, Ana Catarina Mendes, Tiemo Wölken, Krzysztof Śmiszek, Raphaël Glucksmann, Kathleen Van Brempt, Eric Sargiacomo, Leire Pajín, José Cepeda, Estelle Ceulemans, Francisco Assis, Brando Benifei, Mohammed Chahim, Victor Negrescu, Evelyn Regner

Proposal for a directive

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) Article 4(1) of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 prohibits Member States from introducing, in their national law, provisions within the field covered by the Directive laying down human rights and environmental due diligence obligations diverging from those laid down in Article 8(1) and (2), and Article 10(1) of that Directive. To ensure that Member States do not go beyond that Directive and to avoid the creation of a fragmented regulatory landscape resulting in legal uncertainty and unnecessary burden, the full harmonisation provisions of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 should be expanded to additional provisions regulating the core aspects of the due diligence process. That includes, in particular, the duties to address adverse impacts that have been or should have been identified. At the same time, Member States should be allowed to introduce more stringent or more specific provisions on other aspects, including to address emerging risks, specific impacts, products, services or situations.

Or. en

Amendment 192

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 obliges Member States to ensure that large companies above a certain size conduct risk-based human rights and environmental due diligence. To reduce burdens on companies that have to comply with that obligation, the required due diligence should, as a general rule, be limited to the company’s own operations, those of its subsidiaries and those of its direct business partners (‘tier 1’). Consequently, when it comes to business relationships, companies should, after having mapped their chains of activities, be required to carry out in-depth assessments as regards direct business partners only. Companies should, however, look beyond their direct business relationships where they have plausible information that suggests an adverse impact at the level of an indirect business partner. Plausible information means information of an objective character that allows the company to conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that the information is true. This may be the case where the company concerned has received a complaint or is in the possession of information, for example through credible media or NGO reports, reports of recent incidents, or through recurring problems at certain locations about likely or actual harmful activities at the level of an indirect business partner. Where the company has such information, it should carry out an in-depth assessment. Companies should also carry out in-depth assessments with respect to adverse impacts arising beyond their direct business partner where the structure of this business relationship lacks economic rationale and suggests that it was chosen to remove an otherwise direct supplier with harmful activities from the purview of the company. Where the in-depth assessment confirms the likelihood or existence of the adverse impact, it should then be deemed to be identified. In addition, companies should seek to ensure that their code of conduct – which is part of their due diligence policy and sets out the expectations as to how to protect human, including labour, rights and the environment in business operations – is followed throughout the chain of activities in accordance with contractual cascading and SME support.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 193

Henrik Dahl

Proposal for a directive

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 obliges Member States to ensure that large companies above a certain size conduct risk-based human rights and environmental due diligence. However, in order to achieve the European Commission’s objective of simplifying the regulatory environment and reducing the administrative burden on European businesses by at least 25%, and by 35% for SMEs, Directive (EU) 2024/1760 should be repealed. Moreover, many reporting obligations throughout the chain of activities are already covered by CSRD reporting. Therefore, repealing Directive (EU) 2024/1760 would help avoid duplicate reporting.

Or. en

Amendment 194

Proposal for a directive

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 obliges Member States to ensure that large companies above a certain size conduct risk-based human rights and environmental due diligence. However, in order to achieve the European Commission’s objective of simplifying the regulatory environment and reducing the administrative burden on European businesses by at least 25%, and by 35% for SMEs, Directive (EU) 2024/1760 should be repealed. Moreover, many reporting obligations throughout the chain of activities are already covered by CSRD reporting. Therefore, repealing Directive (EU) 2024/1760 would help avoid duplicate reporting.

Or. en

Amendment 195

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 obliges Member States to ensure that large companies above a certain size conduct risk-based human rights and environmental due diligence. To ensure comprehensive risk-based due diligence that adequately addresses problems along companies’ supply chains, the required due diligence should cover the entire value chain. In addition, companies should seek to ensure that their code of conduct – which is part of their due diligence policy and sets out the expectations as to how to protect human, including labour, rights and the environment in business operations – is followed throughout the chain of activities in accordance with contractual cascading and SME support.

Or. fr

Justification

Environmental and human rights abuses are most likely to occur further down a company’s value chain, not among its first-tier business partners. A whole-of-supply chain approach is the basic principle of due diligence.

Amendment 196

Proposal for a directive

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 obliges Member States to ensure that large companies above a certain size conduct risk-based human rights and environmental due diligence. To facilitate compliance with that obligation, this Directive specifies the sources of information that companies should rely on, in first instance, for their scoping duty

Or. en

Amendment 197

Axel Voss, Radan Kanev

Proposal for a directive

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 obliges Member States to ensure that large companies above a certain size conduct risk-based human rights and environmental due diligence. Consequently, when it comes to business relationships, companies should, after having scoped their chains of activities to identify general areas where adverse impacts are most likely to occur and to be most severe, be required to carry out in-depth assessments only where such impacts were identified.

Or. en

Amendment 198

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 obliges Member States to ensure that large companies above a certain size conduct risk-based human rights and environmental due diligence. To reduce burdens on companies that have to comply with that obligation, the required due diligence should no longer start by an identification process which includes a comprehensive mapping of their entire operations, those of their subsidiaries and, where related to their chain of activities, those of their business partners, but by a scoping thereof. This scoping should be risk-based and rest only on information the company can obtain on its own such as, contractual information, information made public, information gathered in the context of multi-stakeholder initiatives, sectoral knowledge, information sent by stakeholders as defined by this directive. Where, following the scoping, the company has information that indicates the likelihood of an adverse impact, it should carry out an in-depth assessment of the operation or operations that raised a suspicion of adverse impact. This assessment should rely on both readily available information companies can obtain on their own and on information they obtain from their subsidiaries, business partners or stakeholders. The main difference between the first phase of scoping and the second phase is in-depth assessment is the level of interaction with business partners. The scoping requires none, the in-depth assessment requires some. The in-depth assessment should be gradually extended beyond the first tiers and should be commensurate with the severity or likelihood of the adverse impacts. Where the in-depth assessment confirms the likelihood or existence of the adverse impact, it should then be deemed to be identified. If a company cannot obtain an information either because a business partner cannot be identified or because a business partner did not respond to repeated queries during the in-depth assessment, the company shall consider a potential adverse impact to have been identified. Meanwhile, the company can notify the supervisory authorities and ask for guidance. In addition, companies should seek to ensure that their code of conduct – which is part of their due diligence policy and sets out the expectations as to how to protect human, including labour, rights and the environment in business operations – is followed throughout the chain of activities in accordance with contractual cascading and SME support.

Or. en

Justification

Based on risk-based approach we set up a three stages approach : 1/ A scoping exercise where risks are identified based on information the company can obtain on their own. 2/ Based on this scoping, an in-depth assessment takes place based, this time, on information the company can gather contacting their business partners, direct or indirect. This assessment must be gradual and proportionate, extending from tier to tier. 3/ If after this assessment, the information cannot be obtained a potential risk must be deemed identifiable and the next stage of the due diligence process must be triggered (preventing an adverse impact) with the last identifiable link of the chain. Meanwhile, the company can notify the supervisory authority to prove its good faith and seek guidance.

Amendment 199

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) Directive (EU) 2024/1760 obliges Member States to ensure that large companies above a certain size conduct risk-based human rights and environmental due diligence. To reduce burdens on companies that have to comply with that obligation, the required due diligence should, as a general rule, be limited to the company’s own operations, taking into account its specific characteristics, its operational and strategic environment, the need to maintain competitiveness as an inherent characteristic of entrepreneurship and the sine qua non condition for the existence of an undertaking.

Or. en

Amendment 200

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Ernő Schaller-Baross, Raffaele Stancanelli

Proposal for a directive

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 201

Javier Zarzalejos, Miriam Lexmann

Proposal for a directive

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 obliges Member States to ensure that large companies above a certain size conduct risk-based human rights and environmental due diligence. To reduce burdens on companies that have to comply with that obligation, the required due diligence should, as a general rule, be limited to the company’s own operations, those of its subsidiaries and those of its direct business partners (‘tier 1’). Consequently, when it comes to business relationships, companies should, after having mapped their chains of activities, be required to carry out in-depth assessments as regards direct business partners only. Companies should, however, look beyond their direct business relationships where they have plausible information that suggests an adverse impact at the level of an indirect business partner or their indirect business partner operates in an high-risk sector or high-risk geographical area. Plausible information means information of an objective character that allows the company to conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that the information is true. This may be the case where the company concerned has received a complaint or is in the possession of information, for example through credible media or NGO reports, reports of recent incidents, or through recurring problems at certain locations about likely or actual harmful activities at the level of an indirect business partner. High-risk sector and hight-risk geographical area mean a sector or an area where systematic and wide-spread human rights and environmental due diligence violations occur. Where the company has such information or its indirect business partner operates in a high-risk geographical area, it should carry out an in-depth assessment. Companies should also carry out in-depth assessments with respect to adverse impacts arising beyond their direct business partner where the structure of this business relationship lacks economic rationale and suggests that it was chosen to remove an otherwise direct supplier with harmful activities from the purview of the company. Where the in-depth assessment confirms the likelihood or existence of the adverse impact, it should then be deemed to be identified. In addition, companies should seek to ensure that their code of conduct – which is part of their due diligence policy and sets out the expectations as to how to protect human, including labour, rights and the environment in business operations – is followed throughout the chain of activities in accordance with contractual cascading and SME support.

Or. en

Amendment 202

Mario Mantovani

Proposal for a directive

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 obliges Member States to ensure that large companies above a certain size conduct risk-based human rights and environmental due diligence. To reduce burdens on companies that have to comply with that obligation, the required due diligence should, as a general rule, be limited to the company’s own operations, those of its subsidiaries and those of its direct business partners (‘tier 1’). Consequently, when it comes to business relationships, companies should, after having mapped their chains of activities, be required to carry out in-depth assessments as regards direct business partners only. Companies should, however, look beyond their direct business relationships where they have plausible information that suggests an adverse impact at the level of an indirect business partner. Plausible information means information of an objective character that allows the company to conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that the information is true. This may be the case where the company concerned has received a complaint or is in the possession of information about likely or actual harmful activities at the level of an indirect business partner. Where the company has such information, it should carry out an in-depth assessment. Companies should also carry out in-depth assessments with respect to adverse impacts arising beyond their direct business partner where the structure of this business relationship lacks economic rationale and suggests that it was chosen to remove an otherwise direct supplier with harmful activities from the purview of the company. Where the in-depth assessment confirms the likelihood or existence of the adverse impact, it should then be deemed to be identified. In addition, companies should seek to ensure that their code of conduct – which is part of their due diligence policy and sets out the expectations as to how to protect human, including labour, rights and the environment in business operations – is followed throughout the chain of activities in accordance with contractual cascading and SME support.

Or. it

Justification

The wording of this part of the text seems misleading and too general.

Amendment 203

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. fr

Justification

The VSME standard was designed for SMEs, not companies with between 250-1000 employees. It has not been tested for these larger companies. The purpose of the voluntary SMEs was to set a basis for data requests from SMEs by detailing basic ESG data relevant for all SMEs, not to limit the kind of information that can be sought.

Amendment 204

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 205

Proposal for a directive

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 206

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Ernő Schaller-Baross, Raffaele Stancanelli

Proposal for a directive

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22) To eliminate the trickle-down effect on small and medium-sized undertakings and small midcap companies when it comes to mapping the value chain to identify adverse impacts, large companies should not ask them any information.

Or. en

Amendment 207

Proposal for a directive

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22) To limit the trickle-down effect on small and medium-sized undertakings and small midcap companies when it comes to the scoping of the chain of activities to identify adverse impacts, companies within the scope should not seek to obtain information from their business partners but rely only on information that is already reasonably available such as publicly known information, information from searches and information gained through earlier cooperation. Entity-level information is not relevant at this stage, nor is any communication with business partners. It should only be possible to seek such information for further assessments under certain conditions. In such a case, it should be possible to seek information from direct business partners with fewer than 5000 employees and a net turnover of more than EUR 1.5 billion that exceeds the information specified in the standards for voluntary use only where, following a risk-based approach, such information is necessary in light of indications of an actual adverse impacts or because the standards do not cover relevant impacts and where such additional information cannot reasonably be obtained by other means, mainly from existing or secondary sources. The same should apply where companies are required to look beyond their direct business partners because they have plausible information suggesting an adverse impact at the level of an indirect business partner. In order to facilitate compliance for companies and the relevant business partners, it should be possible to obtain the necessary information either individually or collaboratively.

Or. en

Amendment 208

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 209

Axel Voss, Radan Kanev

Proposal for a directive

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22) To limit the trickle-down effect on small and medium-sized undertakings and small midcap companies when it comes to mapping the value chain to identify adverse impacts, large companies should limit information requests to business relationships only when necessary within the in-depth assessment (not for the purposes of scoping) where impacts were deemed to be most severe and most likely. Companies should only be required to take appropriate measures to prevent, mitigate, bring to an end or minimise an adverse impact when the company has caused or jointly caused the impact themselves.

Or. en

Amendment 210

Mario Mantovani

Proposal for a directive

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. it

Justification

The proposal opens up the possibility of requiring additional data to the VSME standard when this is necessary in the light of indications of likely adverse effects, or because the VSME standard does not cover material effects and the information cannot reasonably be obtained by other means. Anchoring the level of information that may be required from micro and SMEs to the VSME standard is a fundamental guarantee that protects smaller operators against any disproportionate red tape. Therefore, the derogation should be deleted.

Amendment 211

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22) To limit the trickle-down effect on small and medium-sized undertakings and small midcap companies when it comes to the in-depth assessment to identify adverse impacts, large companies should limit information requests to the information specified in the standards for voluntary use referred to in Article 29a of Directive (EU) 2013/34/EU, unless they need additional information to carry out the in-depth assessment and they cannot obtain that information in any other reasonable way.

Or. en

Justification

In our approach, the first stage (scoping) does not require interaction with entities outside the company so the value chain cap only makes sense for the second stage (in-depth assessment).

Amendment 212

Billy Kelleher, Morten Løkkegaard

Proposal for a directive

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22) To limit the trickle-down effect on small and medium-sized undertakings and small midcap companies when it comes to mapping the value chain to identify adverse impacts, large companies should limit information requests to the information specified in the standards for voluntary use referred to in Article 29a of Directive (EU) 2013/34/EU, unless they need additional information to carry out the mapping and they cannot obtain that information in any other reasonable way. Where a large company purchases a product or service that has been documented as demonstrating outstanding environmental performance in accordance with Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2024 amending Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU as regards empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and through better information, such documentation shall, where relevant, be considered sufficient evidence which the company may directly refer to in its reporting.

Or. en

Amendment 213

Lukas Mandl

Proposal for a directive

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22) To limit the trickle-down effect on small and medium-sized undertakings and small midcap companies when it comes to mapping the value chain to identify adverse impacts, large companies should limit information requests to the information specified in the standards for voluntary use referred to in Article 29a of Directive (EU) 2013/34/EU, unless they need additional information to carry out the mapping and they cannot obtain that information in any other reasonable way. However, reporting undertakings should not request information from micro-enterprises. Accordingly, they may only seek information within their value chain up to, but not beyond, the first micro-enterprise. This limitation is intended to prevent a trickle-down effect of information requests beyond that point

Or. en

Amendment 214

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Ernő Schaller-Baross, Raffaele Stancanelli

Proposal for a directive

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 215

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 216

Proposal for a directive

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 217

Victor Negrescu

Proposal for a directive

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(23) Companies may find themselves in situations where their production heavily relies on inputs from one or several specific suppliers. At the same time, where the business operations of such a supplier are linked to severe adverse impacts, including child labour or significant environmental harm, and the company has unsuccessfully exhausted all due diligence measures to address those impacts, the company, as a last resort should suspend the business relationship while continuing to work with the supplier towards a solution, where possible using any increased leverage resulting from the suspension. However, where the adverse impact involves child labour, the company shall be required, without delay, to implement and maintain robust and proportionate alternative measures specifically aimed at bringing child labour to an end. Such measures shall include, at a minimum, engagement with the business partner to establish time-bound commitments to cease child labour, support for remediation and rehabilitation of affected children, and enhanced monitoring. The company shall report to the competent supervisory authority on the duly justified reasons for its decision not to suspend the business relationship and provide evidence of the alternative measures implemented.

Or. en

Amendment 218

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24) To reduce burdens on companies and make stakeholder engagement more proportionate, companies should only have to engage with workers, their representatives including trade unions, and individuals and communities whose rights or interests are or could be directly affected by the products, services and operations of the company, its subsidiaries and its business partners, and that have a link to the specific stage of the due diligence process being carried out. That includes individuals or communities in the neighbourhood of plants operated by business partners where those individuals or communities are directly affected by pollution, or indigenous people whose right to lands or resources are directly affected by how a business partner acquires, develops or otherwise uses land, forests or waters. Moreover, stakeholder engagement should only be required for certain parts of the due diligence process, namely at the identification stage, for the development of (enhanced) action plans and when designing remediation measures.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 219

Proposal for a directive

Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 220

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Ernő Schaller-Baross, Raffaele Stancanelli

Proposal for a directive

Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24) To reduce burdens on companies and make stakeholder engagement more proportionate, companies should only have to engage with workers. Moreover, stakeholder engagement should only be required for certain parts of the due diligence process, namely at the identification stage and when designing remediation measures.

Or. en

Amendment 221

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24) To ensure effective stakeholder engagement, companies should engage with workers at all levels of their supply chains, worker representatives including trade unions, and individuals, NGOs and communities whose rights or interests are or could be directly affected by the products, services and operations of the company, its subsidiaries and its business partners. That includes individuals or communities in the neighbourhood of plants operated by business partners where those individuals or communities are directly affected by pollution, or indigenous people whose right to lands or resources are directly affected by how a business partner acquires, develops or otherwise uses land, forests or waters.

Or. fr

Amendment 222

Javier Zarzalejos, Miriam Lexmann

Proposal for a directive

Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24) To reduce burdens on companies and make stakeholder engagement more proportionate, companies should only have to engage with workers, their representatives including trade unions, and individuals and communities whose rights or interests are or could be directly affected by the products, services and operations of the company, its subsidiaries and its business partners, and that have a direct link to the specific stage of the due diligence process being carried out. That includes individuals or communities in the neighbourhood of plants operated by business partners where those individuals or communities are directly affected by pollution, or indigenous people whose right to lands or resources are directly affected by how a business partner acquires, develops or otherwise uses land, forests or waters. Moreover, stakeholder engagement should only be required for certain parts of the due diligence process, namely at the identification stage, for the development of (enhanced) action plans and when designing remediation measures.

Or. en

Amendment 223

Victor Negrescu

Proposal for a directive

Recital 24 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(24a) The Commission shall develop and deploy a training programme for SME managers and employees to build capacity in sustainable business practices and digital compliance tools, including online modules and on-site workshops.

Or. en

Amendment 224

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25) To reduce administrative burdens on companies, the Commission’s deadline for the adoption of general due diligence guidelines should be advanced to 26 July 2026. In parallel, the application deadline for Directive (EU) 2024/1760 for the first group of companies should be deferred to 26 July 2028 in accordance with Directive (EU) XXX/XXX13 . That two-year interval will should provide companies with sufficient time to take into account the practical guidance and best practices included in the Commission’s guidelines when implementing due diligence measures.

deleted

__________________

13 Directive (EU) 2025/XX of ……….

Or. en

Amendment 225

Axel Voss, Radan Kanev

Proposal for a directive

Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25) To reduce administrative burdens on companies, the Commission’s deadline for the adoption of due diligence guidelines should be advanced to 26 July 2027. In parallel, the application deadline for Directive (EU) 2024/1760 for the first group of companies should be deferred to 26 July 2029. That two-year interval will should provide companies with sufficient time to take into account the practical guidance and best practices included in the Commission’s guidelines when implementing due diligence measures.

__________________

13 Directive (EU) 2025/XX of ……….

Or. en

Amendment 226

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25) To reduce administrative burdens on companies, the Commission’s deadline for the adoption of general due diligence guidelines should be advanced to 26 July 2026. In parallel, the application deadline for Directive (EU) 2024/1760 for the first group of companies should be deferred to 26 July 2048 in accordance with Directive (EU) XXX/XXX13 . That two-year interval will should provide companies with sufficient time to take into account the practical guidance and best practices included in the Commission’s guidelines when implementing due diligence measures.

__________________

13 Directive (EU) 2025/XX of ……….

Or. en

Amendment 227

Victor Negrescu

Proposal for a directive

Recital 25 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25a) The Commission should adopt sector-specific guidelines tailored to the needs and capacities of small and medium-sized undertakings in sectors where the risk of adverse impacts is high. These guidelines should include simplified templates, examples of proportionate due diligence measures, and recommendations on available digital tools.

Or. en

Amendment 228

Victor Negrescu

Proposal for a directive

Recital 25 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25b) The Commission should support small and medium-sized undertakings in implementing digital solutions to facilitate compliance with sustainability reporting and due diligence obligations, including through dedicated guidance, funding opportunities, and the promotion of interoperable tools tailored to their capacities.

Or. en

Amendment 229

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(26) To ensure better alignment of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 with the sustainability reporting regime laid down in Directive (EU) 2022/2464, the requirement to put into effect the transition plan for climate change mitigation should be replaced by a clarification that the obligation of companies to adopt a transition plan includes outlining implementing actions, planned and taken. The obligation to adopt the plan and its initial and updated design remains subject to administrative supervision.

deleted

Or. fr

Justification

The ECB opinion on the Omnibus ‘recommends that the drafting of the relevant provision should be clarified in the proposed amendments to the CSDDD to ensure that transition plans are put into effect’, and adds that ‘there is a risk that the revised drafting may be misinterpreted as meaning that undertakings are obliged to adopt transition plans but not to implement them’.

Amendment 230

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Ernő Schaller-Baross, Raffaele Stancanelli

Proposal for a directive

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 231

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 232

Proposal for a directive

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 233

Axel Voss

Proposal for a directive

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 234

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(26) To ensure better alignment of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 with the Paris Agreement the reference to the 1.5°C in the transition plan is removed. In order to put into effect the transition plan, the company should no longer deploy best efforts but all reasonable efforts, which means that several proportional and reasonable actions must be taken but the company should not exhaust all possible means at their disposal to put into effect the plan. In order to clarify that such requirement to put into effect the plan is effectively understood as an obligation of means and not result, article 22(1) is modified accordingly. The obligation to adopt the plan and its initial and updated design remains subject to administrative supervision.

Or. en

Justification

We delete the 1.5 reference to stick to the Paris Agreement, which Article 2(a) provides for holding the temperature increase well below 2 degrees and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 thus making sure the transition plans are better aligned with the obligations stemming from the Agreement. We reinsert “put into effect” so the obligation is not merely to adopt but act on the transition plan. We shift from a “best efforts” approach to a more proportional approach of “all reasonable efforts”. We clarify that the putting into effect of the plan is an obligation of means, not result and that it should be proportional and reasonable.

Amendment 235

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 236

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(26) To ensure better alignment of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 with the sustainability reporting regime laid down in Directive (EU) 2022/2464, the requirement to put into effect the transition plan for climate change mitigation should be replaced by a clarification that the obligation of companies to adopt a transition plan includes outlining implementing actions, planned and taken. In order to clarify that such requirements should be understood as an obligation of means and not result, article 22(1) on combating climate change is modified accordingly. The obligation to adopt the plan and its initial and updated design remains subject to administrative supervision.

Or. en

Justification

To answer stakeholders' concerns that the obligations under the transition plan are not an obligation of results, we commit to clarify this in the text.

Amendment 237

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 27

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(27) Article 27(1) of Directive EU 2024/1760 requires Member States to lay down penalties that are to be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”. Article 27(2) of that Directive requires Member States, when deciding whether to impose penalties and, if so, when determining their nature and appropriate level, to take due account of a series of factors that determine the gravity of the infringement and attenuating or aggravating circumstances. Article 27(4) of that Directive requires Member States to base any imposed pecuniary penalties on the net worldwide turnover of the company concerned. However, given the fact that Member States already have to take into account the series of factors laid down in Article 27(2) of that directive, the need to base pecuniary penalties on the net worldwide turnover of the company concerned is superfluous. However, to ensure a level playing field across the Union, Member States should be prohibited from introducing in their national law a ceiling or cap for any pecuniary penalties imposed on companies under their jurisdiction that would prevent supervisory authorities from imposing penalties in accordance with the factors laid down in Article 27(2). Moreover, to harmonise enforcement practices across the Union, the Commission, in collaboration with the Member States, should develop guidelines to assist supervisory authorities in determining the level of penalties.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 238

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Ernő Schaller-Baross, Raffaele Stancanelli

Proposal for a directive

Recital 27

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 239

Proposal for a directive

Recital 27

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 240

Mario Mantovani

Proposal for a directive

Recital 27

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(27) Article 27(1) of Directive EU 2024/1760 requires Member States to lay down penalties that are to be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”. Article 27(2) of that Directive requires Member States, when deciding whether to impose penalties and, if so, when determining their nature and appropriate level, to take due account of a series of factors that determine the gravity of the infringement and attenuating or aggravating circumstances. Article 27(4) of that Directive requires Member States to base any imposed pecuniary penalties on the net worldwide turnover of the company concerned. However, given the fact that Member States already have to take into account the series of factors laid down in Article 27(2) of that directive, the need to base pecuniary penalties on the net worldwide turnover of the company concerned is superfluous. Moreover, to harmonise enforcement practices across the Union, the Commission, in collaboration with the Member States, should develop guidelines to assist supervisory authorities in determining the level of penalties.

Or. it

Justification

Leaving it up to the Member States to decide on the level of penalties, if any, would only increase the fragmentation of the single market and would have a negative impact on the level playing field among European companies.

Amendment 241

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 27

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(27) Article 27(1) of Directive EU 2024/1760 requires Member States to lay down penalties that are to be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”. Article 27(2) of that Directive requires Member States, when deciding whether to impose penalties and, if so, when determining their nature and appropriate level, to take due account of a series of factors that determine the gravity of the infringement and attenuating or aggravating circumstances. Article 27(4) of that Directive requires Member States to base any imposed pecuniary penalties on the net worldwide turnover of the company concerned. However, to ensure a level playing field across the Union, Member States should be prohibited from introducing in their national law a ceiling or cap for any pecuniary penalties imposed on companies under their jurisdiction that would prevent supervisory authorities from imposing penalties in accordance with the factors laid down in Article 27(2). Moreover, to harmonise enforcement practices across the Union, the Commission, in collaboration with the Member States, should develop guidelines to assist supervisory authorities in determining the level of penalties.

Or. fr

Justification

It is essential to ensure that administrative sanctions are truly dissuasive. To achieve this, they must be calculated based on a company’s global turnover, as is already the case in competition law. Without this, the sanctions risk being merely symbolic and ineffective, especially for large multinationals. Only meaningful financial penalties can ensure compliance with due diligence obligations.

Amendment 242

Pascal Canfin

Proposal for a directive

Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(28) To limit possible litigation risks linked to the harmonised civil liability regime of Directive (EU) 2024/1760, the specific, Union-wide liability regime currently provided for in Article 29(1) of that Directive should be removed. At the same time, as a matter of both international and Union law, Member States should be required to ensure that victims of adverse impacts have effective access to justice and to guarantee their right to an effective remedy, as enshrined in Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 9(3) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Member States should therefore ensure that, in case a company is held liable for a failure to comply with the due diligence requirements laid down in Directive (EU) 2024/1760, and that where such failure caused damage, victims are able to receive full compensation, which should be granted in accordance with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, while balancing this through safeguards should prevent against overcompensation. In view of the different rules and traditions that exist at national level when it comes to allowing representative actions, the specific requirement in that regard in Directive (EU) 2024/1760 should be deleted. Such deletion is without prejudice to any provision of the applicable national law allowing a trade union, non-governmental human rights or environmental organisation, other non-governmental organisation or a national human rights institution to bring actions to enforce the rights of the alleged injured party, or to support such actions brought directly by such party. Furthermore, for the same reason, the requirement for Member States to ensure that the liability rules are of overriding mandatory application in cases where the law applicable to claims to that effect is not the national law of the Member State should be deleted. That deletion does not restrict the possibility for Member States to provide that the provisions of national law transposing Article 29 of Directive EU 2024/1760 are of overriding mandatory application in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007, in cases where the law applicable to claims to that effect is not the national law of a Member State.

deleted

Or. en

Justification

Removing the Union-wide liability regime would lead to fragmenting the single market, which runs counter the very idea of EU-wide due diligence replacing national laws on due diligence. removing the Union-wide liability regime would lead to fragmenting the single market, which runs counter the very idea of EU-wide due diligence replacing national laws on due diligence. Removing the Union-wide liability regime would lead to fragmenting the single market, which runs counter the very idea of EU-wide due diligence replacing national laws on due diligence.

Amendment 243

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(28) [...]

deleted

Or. fr

Justification

Removing the Union-wide liability regime creates more difficulties for those seeking to have their rights upheld, and more uncertainty for companies that will have to comply with a series of national legal systems.

Amendment 244

Proposal for a directive

Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(28) Respect for the provisions set out in Directive 2024/1760 is crucial for safeguarding the Union's political, social and economic interests, as well as the attainment of its sustainability objectives. Accordingly, rules governing the civil liability arising from infringements of those provisions are necessary. Nonetheless, in view of the different rules and traditions that exist at national level, the requirements of the harmonised civil liability regime of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 should be simplified. At the same time, as a matter of both international and Union law, Member States should be required to ensure that victims of adverse impacts have effective access to justice and to guarantee their right to an effective remedy, as enshrined in Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 9(3) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Member States should therefore ensure that, in case a company is held liable for a failure to comply with the due diligence requirements laid down in Directive (EU) 2024/1760, and that where such failure caused damage, victims are able to receive full compensation, which should be granted in accordance with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, while balancing this through safeguards should prevent against overcompensation. The provisions of national law transposing Article 29 of Directive EU 2024/1760 are of overriding mandatory application in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007, in cases where the law applicable to claims to that effect is not the national law of a Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 245

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(28) To limit possible litigation risks linked to the harmonised civil liability regime of Directive (EU) 2024/1760, the specific, Union-wide liability regime currently provided for in Article 29(1) of that Directive should be removed. At the same time, as a matter of both international and Union law, Member States should be required to ensure that victims of adverse impacts have effective and appropriate remedies provided by the legal system of a Member State. Member States should therefore ensure that, in case a company is held liable for a failure to comply with the due diligence requirements laid down in Directive (EU) 2024/1760, and that where such failure caused damage, victims are able to receive adequate compensation, which should be granted in accordance with the rules on liability for damages in force in the Member State. In view of the different rules and traditions that exist at national level when it comes to allowing representative actions, the specific requirement in that regard in Directive (EU) 2024/1760 should be deleted. Such deletion is without prejudice to any provision of the applicable national law allowing a trade union, non-governmental human rights or environmental organisation, other non-governmental organisation or a national human rights institution to bring actions to enforce the rights of the alleged injured party, or to support such actions brought directly by such party. Furthermore, for the same reason, the requirement for Member States to ensure that the liability rules are of overriding mandatory application in cases where the law applicable to claims to that effect is not the national law of the Member State should be deleted. That deletion does not restrict the possibility for Member States to provide that the provisions of national law transposing Article 29 of Directive EU 2024/1760 are of overriding mandatory application in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007, in cases where the law applicable to claims to that effect is not the national law of a Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 246

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Ernő Schaller-Baross

Proposal for a directive

Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(28) To limit possible litigation risks linked to the harmonised civil liability regime of Directive (EU) 2024/1760, the specific, Union-wide liability regime currently provided for in Article 29(1) of that Directive should be removed. At the same time, as a matter of both international and Union law, Member States should be required to ensure that victims of adverse impacts have effective access to justice and to guarantee their right to an effective remedy, as enshrined in Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 9(3) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Member States should therefore ensure that, in case a company is held liable for a failure to comply with the due diligence requirements laid down in Directive (EU) 2024/1760, and that where such failure caused damage, victims are able to receive full compensation, which should be granted in accordance with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, while balancing this through safeguards should prevent against overcompensation. In view of the different rules and traditions that exist at national level when it comes to allowing representative actions, the specific requirement in that regard in Directive (EU) 2024/1760 should be deleted. Furthermore, for the same reason, the requirement for Member States to ensure that the liability rules are of overriding mandatory application in cases where the law applicable to claims to that effect is not the national law of the Member State should be deleted. That deletion does not restrict the possibility for Member States to provide that the provisions of national law transposing Article 29 of Directive EU 2024/1760 are of overriding mandatory application in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007, in cases where the law applicable to claims to that effect is not the national law of a Member State.

Or. en

Amendment 247

Arash Saeidi, Mario Furore

on behalf of The Left Group

Proposal for a directive

Recital 29

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(29) Article 36(1) of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 requires the Commission to submit by no later than 26 July 2026 a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the necessity of laying down additional sustainability due diligence requirements tailored to regulated financial undertakings with respect to the provision of financial services and investment activities, and the options for such due diligence requirements and their impacts. As that review clause does not leave any time to take into account the experience with the newly established, general due diligence framework, it should be removed.

Or. fr

Justification

The assessment of the need for financial undertakings to undertake due diligence can be made before the due diligence requirements for other sectors come into force. There is already a body of evidence showing the impact of financial undertakings on sustainability, human rights and the environment which can form the basis of the report.

Amendment 248

Proposal for a directive

Recital 29

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Or. en

Amendment 249

Angelika Winzig, Lukas Mandl

Proposal for a directive

Recital 29 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(29a) In order to safeguard the competitiveness of European companies in times of crisis and to meet the security interests of the European Union, Directive 2024/1760 should allow the Commission to adopt, by means of delegated acts, temporary measures to alleviate the burden on companies where otherwise these European companies would suffer significant economic disadvantages on the global market, or if the application of certain reporting obligations with regard to the operations of these companies would create security risks for the European Union. It should be possible to suspend or adjust reporting, disclosure and other administratively burdensome obligations in the event of a significant decline in gross domestic product observed throughout the Union or in individual Member States. The purpose of this emergency clause is to ensure that European companies remain able to operate in economically challenging times and to avoid unnecessary bureaucratic burdens. The purpose of this emergency clause is to ensure that European companies remain able to operate in economically challenging times and to avoid unreasonable bureaucratic burdens, and that EU citizens are not exposed to security risks that can be avoided.

Or. de

Amendment 250

Angelika Winzig, Lukas Mandl

Proposal for a directive

Recital 29 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(29b) In order to take into account the different business circumstances of undertakings within the scope of Directive (EU) 2024/1760, an individual exemption should be provided for in exceptional cases. Where undertakings can prove that compliance with individual obligations would impose unreasonable burdens, it should be possible for them to be released from those obligations for a limited period of time upon request. Such a provision would help maintain proportionality while safeguarding the objectives of the directive in question.

Or. de

Amendment 251

Angelika Winzig, Lukas Mandl, Angelika Niebler

Proposal for a directive

Recital 29 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(29c) In order to ensure a regular review of the effectiveness, proportionality and necessity of the measures provided for in Directive (EU) 2024/1760, their application should be limited in time. The provisions of this Directive should therefore expire on a specified date, unless renewed or replaced by a new legal act. The Commission should be required to carry out an evaluation in good time before this deadline and to report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of the Directive. As a result of the expiry of the Directive, Member States should repeal or adapt the national provisions transposing it.

Or. de

Amendment 252

Angelika Winzig, Lukas Mandl

Proposal for a directive

Recital 29 d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(29d) In order to foster innovation, the practical implementation of Directive 2024/1760 should allow undertakings to test new models or technologies under a temporary test status. Such regulatory testing environments (regulatory sandboxes) allow for a controlled exemption from certain obligations, provided that the equivalent achievement of the objectives pursued by that Directive is ensured. Member States should ensure that national implementing legislation does not apply during the test period to undertakings performing tests.

Or. de

Amendment 253

Tobiasz Bocheński, Kosma Złotowski

Proposal for a directive

Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(30) Since the objectives of this Directive cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 254

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Ernő Schaller-Baross

Proposal for a directive

Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

deleted

Or. en

Amendment 255

Mario Mantovani

Proposal for a directive

Recital 30 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(30a) It is essential to establish a Union framework for a responsible and sustainable approach to global value chains, given the importance of companies as pillars in the construction of a sustainable society and economy. The emergence of binding law in a number of Member States has given rise to the need for a level playing field for companies in order to prevent fragmentation and provide legal certainty for businesses operating in the internal market. Therefore, this Directive should prevent Member States from introducing more stringent measures into national law than those laid down in this Directive.

(This amendment is intended to replace Recital 31 of Directive 2024/1760)

Or. it

Justification

Amendment 256

Pascale Piera, Julie Rechagneux, Ton Diepeveen, Ernő Schaller-Baross

Proposal for a directive

Recital 31

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(31) Directive 2006/43/EC, Directive 2013/34/EU, Directive (EU) 2022/2464 and Directive (EU) 2024/1760 should therefore be amended accordingly,

(31) Directive (EU) 2022/2464 and Directive (EU) 2024/1760 should therefore be repealed.

Or. en