A Critical Analysis of the CSDDD and Directive 2026/470, in Light of Legal Interpretivism, EU Values and Objectives

Sammanfattning

Globalized economics have resulted in intricate global value chains carrying systemic risks of adverse human rights impacts. To address this, the EU adopted the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) in June 2024, establishing mandatory human rights due diligence for covered companies. However, following a regulatory simplification agenda aimed at reducing corporate administrative burdens, the Union enacted Directive 2026/470 in February 2026, introducing substantive modifications to the CSDDD framework. This thesis critically analyzes the amendments introduced by Directive 2026/470 to the CSDDD, focusing specifically on its scope, due diligence obligations and enforcement mechanisms. This, with the obligations including implementation of due diligence processes, identification and assessment of risks, prioritization of impacts, and addressing potential and actual adverse impacts. To outline the material scope, the obligation-defining term ‘appropriate measures’ is examined. Moreover, the thesis answers the core research question: Do the amendments introduced by Directive 2026/470 align with the theory of legal interpretivism, and are they consistent with the foundational objectives and fundamental values of the European Union? It can be concluded that Directive 2026/470 introduces amendments in line with the objectives of reducing administrative burdens and strengthening the EU competitiveness, shifting focus away from human rights protection. In line with this, Directive 2026/470 introduces a considerable reduction of the scope, comparable to Dworkin's arbitrary checkerboard laws. It further narrows the obligation to identify and assess risks, potentially compromising access to evidence for victims of adverse impacts. In addition to this, it removes the harmonised civil liability regime, lowers the limit for the pecuniary penalties of the public enforcement and removes the requirement of terminating business relationships as a last resort. These overall amendments fail to align with legal interpretivism, as well as the objectives and values of the Union.