The 13\/10 the Parliament\u2019s Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) voted to adopt the EPP Omnibus comprise (17 votes for, 6 against and 2 abstentions), with 4 items being particularly politically sensitive according to J\u00f6rgen Warborn (EPP):<\/p>\n
\ud83d\udfe3 Scope<\/strong><\/p>\n \u27a1\ufe0f CSRD: 1000 employees and net annual turnover above\u00a0450 M\u20ac (this would also apply to sustainability reporting under\u00a0green taxonomy rules)<\/p>\n \u27a1\ufe0f CS3D: 5000 employees and net yearly turnover above\u00a01,5 bn\u20ac (incl foreign businesses with a net turnover in the EU above the same threshold)<\/p>\n For firms no longer covered by the rules, reporting would be voluntary, in line with Commission guidelines.\u00a0Sector-specific reporting would also become voluntary.<\/p>\n The European Central Bank has expressed concerns that the reduction in scope leaves a blind spot regarding the companies’ exposition to climate-related financial risks – but J\u00f6rgen explained that he finds that “the balance is now good” and that one-to-one relations between companies and banks can fill this blind spot.<\/p>\n \u203c\ufe0f The financial markets and large companies will set the expectations with regards to reporting and due diligence. Sustainability governance and reporting is the new normal.<\/p>\n \ud83d\udfe3 Transition plan<\/strong> (vote 13\/12, most narrow majority, will it hold in the plenary vote?)<\/p>\n \u27a1\ufe0f No difference made in CSRD \ud83d\udfe3 Civil liability issue<\/strong><\/p>\n Businesses should be liable for damages caused by breaches of due diligence obligations under national law, rather than at the EU level.<\/p>\n The maximum fine level for offending companies would remain at 5% of their global turnover, and the Commission and EU member states should provide guidance for national authorities on these penalties.<\/p>\n \u27a1\ufe0f Previous criticism was linked to the old CS3D according to J\u00f6rgen Warborn \ud83d\udfe3 CS3D due diligence<\/strong><\/p>\n Instead of systematically asking for information required for their due diligence assessments from their business partners, MEPs want CS3D in-scope companies to adopt a risk-based approach (different from the Council’s position, now subject to negotiations), whereby they only ask for the necessary information where there is the plausible prospect of an adverse impact in their business partners\u2019 activities.<\/p>\n Next steps<\/strong><\/p>\n Should the Parliament approve the committee mandate at the next plenary session (expected next week), MEPs and EU governments should start negotiations on the final text of the legislation on 24 October.<\/p>\n The final trilogy session is planned for Dec. 8, with the objective to give companies predictability for 2026.<\/p>\n
\n\u27a1\ufe0f Transitions plans are still mandatory in CS3D
\n\u27a1\ufe0f But “legally binding implementing actions” would not be required by CS3D (“saying exactly what you actually have to do”)<\/p>\n
\n\u27a1\ufe0f Now the EU parliament, commission and council are aligned
\n\u27a1\ufe0f This issue is not linked to simplification, but to the need for investments in Europe to create growth according to J\u00f6rgen Warborn<\/p>\n