The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) had barely been adopted before it came under renewed pressure. At a Human Rights Talk on 28 April 2026, experts discussed a regulation that was originally conceived as a milestone for human rights and environmental protection, but has already been noticeably weakened even before its entry into force. Moderator Birgit Dalheimer (Radio Ö1) guided the discussion through an evening that demonstrated that corporate responsibility along global supply chains is by no means a marginal political issue – a fact also reflected in the strong interest of around 100 participants.

In her opening remarks, Angelika Hatzl (Amnesty International Austria) made clear what is at the core: people. Supply chains, she argued, are not a technical detail but a test of whether Europe takes its human rights commitments seriously. Since the collapse of Rana Plaza, it has become evident how closely European consumption is linked to precarious working conditions in the Global South. This, she warned, makes concerns all the greater that protection standards may now be weakened once again.

A Directive between ambition and dilution

In her keynote, Camilla Haake (LBI-GMR) traced the historical and legal development of corporate due diligence obligations. She situated the EU Supply Chain Directive within the broader international human rights framework – from the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to European sustainability goals – and outlined its key components.

However, central elements of the original directive have already been rolled back or weakened in the so-called Omnibus process. As a result, an instrument has been altered even before it could take practical effect.

Haake warned against framing economic simplification in opposition to human rights. A “simpler and faster Europe” must not come at the expense of social justice and environmental sustainability. What will now be decisive is how member states use the remaining room for manoeuvre in implementation.

Risks lie in the depths of supply chains

The subsequent panel quickly made clear that the greatest risks arise where transparency is lowest. Haake referred to the “ends of supply chains,” while Felicitas Hinkis (Lidl Austria) spoke of their “depths,” where human rights violations and environmental issues most frequently occur. This, they suggested, is precisely where due diligence is most necessary and at the same time most difficult to implement. Nevertheless, companies should understand their responsibility as extending beyond the so-called “first tier,” meaning their direct business partners.

Bettina Rosenberger (Network for Social Responsibility) drew attention to the annex of the directive, which defines which human rights and environmental standards are protected. Many key instruments, such as the European Convention on Human Rights or the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, are not included. This creates legal grey areas: “What is not listed in the annex is not protected.” Climate concerns, too, are only insufficiently addressed.

Companies between initiative and legal uncertainty

When asked what the directive would change for her company, Hinkis responded plainly: “Very little will change for us.” According to Hinkis, Lidl sees itself as a frontrunner and has for years worked with a risk-based approach, using certifications and conducting human rights impact assessments in high-risk regions. Closing the gap between minimum wages and living wages, for example in banana and cocoa production, is particularly important.

At the same time, Hinkis made clear that voluntary measures have their limits. Without uniform EU rules, competitive disadvantages are likely. Many suppliers, often small and medium-sized enterprises, are also confronted with a multitude of regulations. The ongoing uncertainty surrounding the CSDDD further complicates cooperation.

Competitiveness as a point of contention

Agnes Balthasar Wach (Austrian Federal Economic Chamber) reaffirmed the business community’s commitment to human rights, but warned against excessive bureaucracy and unclear liability risks. The CSDDD, she argued, does not stand alone but adds to a range of other Green Deal regulations. For many companies, the burden is significant, including for those not formally covered by the directive but affected as suppliers.

The Chamber would have preferred limiting due diligence obligations to direct business partners. The fact that this was not implemented, she suggested, is a missed opportunity for relief.

An engaged audience

The audience discussion confirmed the previously outlined lines of conflict. Some participants saw the directive as an important lever for responsible business conduct. Others emphasised the role of consumers or pointed to the geopolitical dimension of European regulation. Criticism of EU requirements was also voiced, with strict audits in some cases leading to one-sided burdens in the Global South.

Hinkis disagreed, stressing the importance of local partnerships. Rosenberger noted that the CSDDD could also strengthen people in repressive contexts. Balthasar Wach, in turn, warned that companies might feel compelled to withdraw from certain countries altogether.

Conclusion: More than a technical directive

The evening made clear that the debate on supply chains extends far beyond legal technicalities. It touches on fundamental questions of global responsibility, economic power, and political agency. Sustainable markets will only be possible if conditions along supply chains remain visible, so that human rights obligations can be effectively enforced.