The European Parliament has voted to reopen the EU’s corporate sustainability due-diligence law (CSDDD), setting up another round of amendments after sustained pushback from the United States and Qatar over the rules’ impact on trade and energy supply.
Lawmakers aim to settle Parliament’s position at next month’s sitting before entering talks with EU governments, with the objective of concluding by year-end.
Wednesday’s decision follows an earlier committee-stage drive to scale back the law’s scope. On 13 October, the Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee backed changes that would raise company thresholds and remove certain planning obligations. Proposals under discussion would confine the directive to firms with at least 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion in global turnover, compared with the current thresholds of 1,000 employees and €450 million adopted last year. The committee also supported deleting a requirement for corporate “transition plans”.
At plenary, however, attempts to fast-track a simplified package covering sustainability reporting and due-diligence obligations were rejected, forcing a fresh mandate to be drawn up in November. Parliamentary figures show the mandate from the Legal Affairs Committee was voted down by 318 to 309, with 34 abstentions. The revised position is scheduled for the 13–16 November Brussels session.
External pressure has intensified. In a joint démarche reported on Wednesday, Washington and Doha warned that the EU’s approach risks disrupting liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade and broader investment ties. Their message, conveyed to EU leaders, urged Brussels to reverse or substantially dilute the rules. The United States has linked the issue to its LNG export policy, while Qatar—one of Europe’s principal post-2022 LNG suppliers—has said it may be unable to continue doing business in the EU if changes are not made.
Reuters reported that Parliament’s decision to reopen the file comes explicitly “after US, Qatar pushback”, with lawmakers now preparing further adjustments before trilogue-style negotiations with member states. The timeline envisages an internal Parliament agreement next month, followed by inter-institutional talks targeting approval before the end of the year.
The CSDDD, agreed in 2024, requires large companies operating in the EU single market—including certain non-EU groups meeting turnover thresholds—to identify, prevent and remedy adverse human-rights and environmental impacts in their value chains. National supervisors would enforce compliance, with potential administrative penalties and civil-liability exposure. Business groups argue that the original design imposes heavy compliance costs and extraterritorial burdens; advocates counter that due diligence is now a baseline expectation for access to global markets. The current political debate has centred on where to set company-size thresholds, the phasing-in calendar from 2027, and whether to retain mandated transition plans.
Energy security concerns are a principal vector in the latest lobbying. Qatar’s energy minister, Saad al-Kaabi, told Reuters last week that the law, as framed, poses risks for state-owned QatarEnergy and could jeopardise LNG flows to Europe. US officials and industry stakeholders have similarly argued that documentation and liability provisions tied to methane intensity, community impacts and supplier practices could complicate long-term LNG contracts and project finance.
Inside Parliament, parties to the centre-right have pressed for “competitiveness-proofing” of the file, citing cumulative regulatory costs. The committee-level text backed by conservatives would sharply limit the population of in-scope firms by lifting staff and turnover thresholds, while removing transition-plan obligations viewed by industry as duplicative of other EU instruments. Opponents of dilution—including some centrist, Green and left groups—say higher thresholds would exclude a large share of multinationals with complex supply chains and undermine the directive’s core purpose.
The institutional path from here is procedural but contested. Parliament must first coalesce around a revised negotiating line at its mid-November sitting. That position would then be taken into talks with the Council, which represents the member states. According to Parliament’s press service, the failed mandate will be replaced with a new text for a vote in the 13 November week, aligning the timetable with the broader “Omnibus I” simplification package that had bundled elements on sustainability reporting and due diligence. Any final law would require formal approval by both Parliament and Council.
For companies, the stakes are immediate. If the higher thresholds and trimmed obligations advance, significantly fewer groups would fall under the EU regime in the first implementation wave. If the original thresholds are reinstated in trilogue, coverage would expand, including to non-EU companies meeting EU turnover tests. For energy exporters, clarity on the evidentiary and liability standards is central to contract certainty for 2027-2030 deliveries. Markets will watch November’s vote for signals on the scope and pace of implementation.
