The Requirements Proposal forms part of the Omnibus I package and will make substantive changes to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).
The trilogues on the Requirements Proposal (i.e. negotiations between the European Parliament and Council) started on 18 November. Ahead of the first trilogue, the Council published a 4-column document setting out the starting negotiating positions of the Commission, the Council and the Parliament on the proposed amendments to the CSRD and CSDDD.
The areas with the most divergence between the Council and Parliament are:
CSRD scope: The Council and Parliament are aligned on the net turnover threshold for EU companies and for non-EU companies with securities listed on an EU regulated market. However, they diverge regarding employee headcount thresholds.
The Council and Parliament hold divergent positions on non-EU companies (without securities on a regulated market). The Parliament has proposed removing the requirement for the non-EU company to have a certain net turnover in the EU and instead including only a requirement for the non-EU company to have an EU subsidiary or branch hitting a certain global net turnover threshold.
CSDDD mandatory transition plans: Whereas the Council has proposed retaining a transition plan requirement, the Parliament has proposed removing this entirely.
CSDDD due diligence requirements: Both the Council and Parliament recognise the need to make due diligence obligations more manageable. The debate focuses on the best approach to this: by limiting due diligence to direct (Tier 1) relationships, with some exceptions, or by applying a broader, risk-based approach (or a combination of both).
Value chain cap: Both the Council and Parliament have a value chain cap in the CSRD and CSDDD. However, they disagree on the specific thresholds and the practical operation of the cap.
The table below covers the key positions held by the Commission, Council and Parliament in more detail.
According to the Parliament press release, the parties are hoping to finalise negotiations by the end of 2025.
CSRD
Topic | Commission proposal | Council | Parliament |
Scope - EU companies | Net turnover: “large”* EU undertaking or parent undertaking of a “large” group. Headcount: 1,000 employees. * An undertaking / group is “large” if it fulfils 2 of the following 3 criteria: (i) EUR 25 million balance sheet; (ii) EUR 50 million net turnover; and (iii) 250 employees. | Net turnover: EUR 450 million net turnover (unconsolidated unless it is a parent). Headcount: 1,000 employees.
| Net turnover: EUR 450 million net turnover (unconsolidated unless it is a parent). Headcount: 1,750 employees.
|
Scope – Non-EU companies
| Net turnover: Non-EU parent has:
| Same as Commission’s position.
| Net turnover: Non-EU parent has an EU subsidiary or branch that has more than EUR 450 million net turnover (in each case on an unconsolidated basis) Headcount: N/A.
|
Value chain cap (i.e. when can an in-scope company request sustainability information from other companies in their value chain) | Companies should not seek sustainability information from companies in their value chain which have fewer than 1,000 employees unless that information is within the scope of the voluntary standards or commonly shared between undertakings in the relevant sector.
| Similar in principle to the Commission’s position with slight changes to the mechanics. Does not include a provision for information that is “commonly shared” in the relevant sector. Contract clauses seeking information beyond the scope of the voluntary standards will not be binding. | Broadly aligned with the Commission’s position, but applies increased employee threshold (1,750 employees) and a net turnover requirement (EUR 450 million). Includes additional requirements to explain efforts made to obtain value chain information.
|
Transition plans | No changes to the CSRD provisions. | Amendment of description of transition plan that must be reported under the ESRS to lower level of prescriptiveness (e.g., business model and strategy only required to “contribute to” transition rather than be “compatible” with the transition; reference to 1.5°C is removed). | No changes to the CSRD provisions. |
Reporting carve-outs | N/A | Carve-outs for commercial sensitive information, trade secrets, intellectual property etc. | Carve-outs for intellectual property, trade secrets etc.
|
Taxonomy | Taxonomy reporting becomes optional (and more flexible) in certain circumstances for EU undertakings that are in scope but do not have a net turnover exceeding EUR 450 million (individually or on a consolidated basis). | Position aligned with the Commission’s proposal. | Position aligned with the Commission’s proposal. |
Assurance | Future uplift in assurance requirements from limited assurance to reasonable assurance is removed.
| Aligned with the Commission’s proposal to remove reasonable assurance.
| Aligned with the Commission’s proposal to remove reasonable assurance. Requires the Commission to adopt limited assurance standards by 1 October 2026. |
CSDDD
Topic | Commission proposal | Council | Parliament |
Scope - EU companies | The Commission does not propose any changes to the current scoping tests. Net turnover: EUR 450 million net turnover globally (unconsolidated unless it is ultimate parent). Headcount: 1,000 employees. | Net turnover: EUR 1.5 billion net turnover globally (unconsolidated unless it is ultimate parent). Headcount: 5,000 employees. | Same as Council’s position.
|
Scope - | The Commission does not propose any changes to the current scoping tests Net turnover: EUR 450 million net turnover in the EU (unconsolidated unless it is ultimate parent) Headcount: N/A | Net turnover: EUR 1.5 billion net turnover in the EU (unconsolidated unless it is ultimate parent) Headcount: N/A
| Same as Council’s position.
|
Application date | No change. | Application date pushed back by one year to 26 July 2029. Application date for transition plans pushed back to July 2031. | No change.
|
Transition plans | Mandatory transition plan still required, but includes tweaks to specific requirements from existing position such as:
| Mandatory transition plan still required, but softening of specific requirements from Commission’s proposal such as:
| Mandatory transition plan requirement deleted entirely. |
Due diligence | Limits requirement to conduct in-depth assessments to Tier 1. Companies would only be required to carry out assessments of indirect business partners based on plausible information suggesting that adverse impacts have arisen or may arise. | Limits requirement to conduct in-depth assessments to Tier 1. Similar in principle to the Commission’s proposal, but provides additional specificity around when assessment of indirect business partners is required. | Risk-based approach to assessments rather than a limitation to Tier 1.
|
Value chain cap | Value chain cap applies to companies with fewer than 500 employees. Information limited to that within the scope of the voluntary standards (subject to certain exceptions). | Similar in principle to the Commission, but nuances to how the cap works in practice (e.g., what information can be requested and in what circumstances). Value chain cap applies to companies with fewer than 1,000 employees. | Similar in principle to the Commission, but nuances to how the cap works in practice (e.g., what information can be requested and in what circumstances). Value chain cap applies to companies with fewer than 5,000 employees. |
Suspension/ termination of business relationships | The Commission removes the obligation to terminate business relationships as a measure of last resort but retains the possibility of suspension of business relationships in certain circumstances. | Broadly aligned with the Commission’s proposal with some minor changes in nuance. | Broadly aligned with the Commission’s proposal with some minor changes in nuance. Additional exception where the business relationship provides a raw material, product or service that is essential and has no available alternative. |
Civil liability | Provisions in the current CSDDD on harmonised (EU-wide) civil liability are removed. This means that civil liability would be defined by the national law of each Member State. | Aligned with the Commission’s proposal. | Aligned with the Commission’s proposal. |
Penalties | Deletes provision for penalties based on net worldwide turnover (including the minimum maximum 5% fine), with a requirement for the Commission to develop and issue guidelines on penalties. | Council sets a maximum fine of 5% of net worldwide turnover. | Aligned with the Council’s position on the maximum fine of 5% of net worldwide turnover. It also aligns with the requirement to issue guidance but suggests this should take into account the turnover of companies. |
Further information
See our EU Omnibus Tracker for details on the current status of other changes to EU sustainability rules.

/Passle/5f6c57568cb62a0d7c9eadee/SearchServiceImages/2025-05-14-11-08-22-491-682479a6822da73188e67f5d.jpg)
/Passle/5f6c57568cb62a0d7c9eadee/SearchServiceImages/2025-11-18-14-20-52-973-691c80c4e22d9808a79010b4.jpg)
/Passle/5f6c57568cb62a0d7c9eadee/SearchServiceImages/2025-11-17-13-56-15-800-691b297fe44a5af8ac0d755b.jpg)
/Passle/5f6c57568cb62a0d7c9eadee/SearchServiceImages/2025-11-14-16-38-09-780-69175af18967166e349555b9.jpg)
/Passle/5f6c57568cb62a0d7c9eadee/SearchServiceImages/2025-11-13-17-23-08-287-691613fc051c6231c6b1b786.jpg)