Expanding Due Diligence: The European Commission’s Proposed Directive 2022/0051

May 10, 2022

Reading Time : 6 min

By: Amy Kennedy, George O'Malley, Ben Hasson, Trainee Solicitor (not admitted to practice)

If implemented, Relevant Companies (defined below) would be obliged to consider and mitigate adverse effects upon human rights and the environment caused by their (or their subsidiaries’) business operations (“Adverse Effects”). More onerously, Relevant Companies would be obliged to conduct due diligence on third party companies comprising their “Value Chain” (defined below).

The ambitious Directive does not encompass small- and medium-sized businesses (SME) directly, but its extraterritorial applicability and the horizontal value chain due diligence would necessarily impact SMEs contracted by Relevant Companies.

Relevant Companies

The Directive would apply to two types of companies (“Relevant Companies”):

Type 1 – EU Companies: a limited liability company incorporated in an EU member state that:

  1. Has over 500 employees and €150 million turnover.
  2. Has over 250 employees and €40 million turnover and operates in a relevant sector3.

Type 2 – Foreign Companies: a limited liability company incorporated in a third country that:

  1. Has over €150 million turnover in the EU.
  2. Has over €40 million turnover in the EU and operates in a relevant sector4.

The proposals are broad in scope, applicable not only to Relevant Companies, but also to their subsidiaries, and—notably—their Value Chain operations, i.e., those entities with which the Relevant Company has an “established business relationship” (“Value Chain”).

The definition of a business relationship is extensive, comprising any legal entity which performs business operations related to the company’s products and services, or with which the Relevant Company has a commercial agreement, or to which the company provides finance or insurance services. Whether or not the Relevant Company has a business relationship with a third party is to be re-assessed annually5. Similarly broad, the definition of “Value Chain” includes any activities related to the production of the Relevant Company’s goods or provision of its services whether upstream or downstream.

Although the practical applicability of horizontal due diligence is uncertain, existing regimes may provide useful context. The Commission notes in its preface to the Directive that horizontal due diligence is not entirely new, and has already been legislated in some EU states including France and Germany.

Standard of Due Diligence

The Directive contains seven landmark proposals comprising a new extensive due diligence regime. The requisite due diligence ought to extinguish or mitigate both actual and potential Adverse Effects, and requires both internal policy and external publications by the Relevant Companies.

Relevant Companies would have to implement the following due diligence measures:

1. Integrate due diligence into corporate policies. Integration would be evidenced by a “due diligence policy” comprising a description of the company’s approach to due diligence and a code of conduct detailing rules and principles followed by the Relevant Company’s employees and subsidiaries.

2. Identify actual or potential Adverse Effects. It is anticipated that this identification process would be data-led and informed by a required complaints procedure, likely interacting with the Taxonomy and Disclosure regimes in the EU (read more about them in our previous Client Alert). Certain Relevant Companies with revenue below €150 million turnover (Type 1(ii) and Type 2(ii), above) would only be obliged to identify actual or potential adverse impacts that were “severe.”

3. Prevent or mitigate potential Adverse Effects. The obligation would be two-tiered, requiring, in the first instance, prevention of potential Adverse Effects. Only where prevention would not be immediately possible would “mitigation” be an adequate solution. The obligation would likely be onerous, requiring (where relevant) the development of a prevention action plan (detailing timelines and indicators for improvement), the seeking of contractual assurances from Value Chain third parties, and collaboration with other companies and stakeholders.

4. End or minimize existing Adverse Effects. The proposed obligation is broad in scope, applicable to those actual Adverse Effects which have been identified (1, above) as well as to those which ought to have been identified. The obligation would likely be similarly onerous to 3 (above) in requiring an action plan as well as contractual assurances from (and collaboration with) Value Chain third parties. However, the requirement does have more clear defined financial obligations, including damages to affected stakeholders and “where necessary” investment into the management and production infrastructures associated with the Adverse Effects.

5. Implementation of complaints procedure. The envisaged complaints procedure will interact with the other due diligence obligations, and inform the mechanism by which Relevant Companies must identify actual and potential Adverse Effects. The direct procedure must at least afford complaints from (1) persons who are affected by or believe they might be affected by an Adverse Effect, (2) trade unions representing workers in the Value Chain, and (3) civil society organizations related to the Value Chain. The procedure must include consideration and conclusion of the foundations of each complaint.

6. Re-assessment. Periodical re-assessment of the company’s due diligence measures at least every 12 months or where there are reasonable grounds to believe that “significant” new risks of Adverse Effects have arisen.

7. Accountability. Annual publication of a statement describing due diligence efforts and potential and Adverse Effects and actions taken by those. Note that this provision will only apply to Relevant Companies not caught by Directive 2013/34/EU, the scope of which we considered in a previous Client Alert.

Sustainability Compliance

In addition to the above due diligence provisions, the Directive would require most Relevant Companies with revenue over €150 million (Type 1(i) and Type 2(i), above) to adopt a business plan which is compatible with the sustainable economy envisaged by the Paris Agreement; namely, its commitment to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade. Though currently unclear in detail, it is expected that a compatible plan would specify the company’s emissions objectives and the extent to which climate change is a “risk” for the company’s business operations. The Directive does specify that, for companies using variable remuneration for directors, such sustainability compliance must be “taken into account” when calculating remuneration.

Liability for Delinquency

The Directive proposed mandatory civil liability provisions coordinated by a European Network of Supervisory Authorities, anticipated to be involved with intra-Union data sharing, sanctioning and complaint-handling. Proposed civil penalties include liability in damages for Relevant Companies that fail to identify and prevent potential Adverse Effects, or fail to end or minimize existing Adverse Effects.

Directors would be responsible under the Directive to set up and oversee all of the above due diligence measures and for adapting corporate strategy accordingly. More pointedly, the Directive proposes an additional directors’ duty to take into account the consequences of their decisions upon sustainability matters, human rights and climate change. This would overlap with the duty to act in the best interests of the company, and the likely test for compliance would reference the due diligence measures above.

Existing Framework

The Directive interacts closely with the EU’s climate laws: namely, the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD), the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, as well as the EU’s general human rights law, and the Taxonomy Regulation.

The due diligence envisaged by the Directive is to be data-driven and will likely be influenced by the emergent disclosure rules under the Sustainable Finance Disclosures Regulation (SFDR) (considered in a previous Client Alert) and environmental metrics in the Taxonomy Regulation.

Next Steps

The Directive—still currently only a proposal—will now be considered by the European Parliament and the European Council in turn. The process will take years, and the provisions in the Directive will likely not be implemented in EU states before 2026.

The U.K. government has not yet published guidance or analysis of the Directive or its applicability to Relevant Companies and Value Chain companies based in Britain.


1 European Commission Directive Proposal 2022/0051.

2 EU Regulation 2021/1119 and EU Regulations 401/2009 and 2018/1999.

3 Relevant sectors are defined at Article 2(b) of the Directive and include agriculture, natural resources, metals, chemicals and certain manufacturing.

4 Relevant sectors are defined at Article 2(b) of the Directive and include agriculture, natural resources, metals, chemicals and certain manufacturing.

5 Art.1, European Commission Directive Proposal 2022/0051.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Sustainability

December 11, 2024

The Biden administration’s environmental policies and the future of infrastructure projects are facing pivotal legal challenges and political shifts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit questioned the viability of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2024 power plant emissions rule, particularly its reliance on carbon capture technology, while the 6th Circuit overturned the EPA’s rejection of Kentucky’s smog plan, which comes only three days after the EPA issued its defense of its “good neighbor” smog control plan responding to the Supreme Court’s decision to halt its implementation in June. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s handling of the first National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) case in some time, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, could substantially alter the scope of environmental reviews, with potential immediate implications for the oil & gas industry. These judicial reviews may be influenced by a potential change in administration and Congress, as Trump-era officials, including Vivek Ramaswamy, advocate for scaling back NEPA regulations to expedite infrastructure projects. Additionally, the Department of Energy’s recent clarity on liquified natural gas (LNG) export authorizations underscores the broader tension between expanding fossil fuel infrastructure and adhering to environmental regulations amidst a polarized political and legal landscape.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

October 3, 2024

NYC Climate Week included over 900 events with an estimated 100,000 participants swarming the City. While indicative of growing interest in climate action, some note that the record turnout foreshadows a smaller presence at COP 29 in Azerbaijan.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

September 19, 2024

Recent legislative and regulatory developments reflect ongoing tensions between environmental policies and economic priorities in the U.S. energy landscape. The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s advancement of three resolutions targeting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules on power plants, vehicle emissions and air quality standards marks a broader Republican effort to counter President Biden’s environmental agenda, though these resolutions face likely vetoes. In contrast, House Speaker Mike Johnson has signaled openness to retaining certain green energy tax credits, reflecting a pragmatic approach as some Republican districts benefit from these investments. Simultaneously, bipartisan efforts to boost critical mineral production, led by Senators Hickenlooper and Tillis, aim to reduce U.S. reliance on Chinese imports, while the White House has raised tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and solar products, a move seen as both protective of domestic industries and potentially disruptive to supply chains. Legal battles continue, as seen in the judicial blocking of the Interior Department’s methane rule in five states and ongoing litigation over EPA’s cross-state pollution rule, which the agency has been allowed to revise. Meanwhile, grid operators have expressed concerns that the EPA’s carbon emissions rule could threaten power plant operations, pushing for legal revisions to protect grid reliability. Together, these developments reflect the broader debate over balancing environmental regulations with economic and energy security concerns.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

September 12, 2024

After a recent permitting reform bill was passed out of a Senate Committee, House Republicans took steps to draft their own permitting reform legislation. Rep. Westerman (R- AR) held a hearing to discuss his draft bill, which most notably places limitations on the environmental permitting process for energy projects. This comes as both parties position energy policy as a key election issue, with Vice President Harris recognizing a role for oil and gas production during the Presidential debate in response to Republican criticism of her climate policies. Meanwhile, former President Trump vowed to pull back unspent dollars approved for greenhouse gas reduction and energy transition projects under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The IRA has already spurred significant renewable energy investment, particularly in rural electric co-ops using the funds to replace coal generation with clean energy and battery storage.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

August 14, 2024

With U.S. elections rapidly approaching, presidential candidates are expected to foreshadow key aspects of their energy and environmental legislative and policy agendas. In particular, the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 may prompt Vice President Kamala Harris to balance legislative progress with her environmental justice commitments. The proposed bill promises to expedite clean energy projects but also aids fossil fuel industries and potentially at odds with front-line environmental justice communities. While White House climate adviser John Podesta expresses cautious optimism about the bill’s post-election prospects, environmental groups are calling on Harris to oppose the bill. Similarly, Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, takes a nuanced stance on mining projects near sensitive watersheds, balancing the difficult trade-offs in advancing clean energy mandates while maintaining resource development. This exhibits the complex negotiations required to align bipartisan support behind the democratic ticket’s climate goals ahead of the presidential election.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

August 8, 2024

On August 6, 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris selected Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate in the 2024 election. Walz, a little-known figure in national politics, serving in his second term as governor in Minnesota, has implemented far reaching energy policies after winning a democratic trifecta in 2023. Two bills establishing a mandate for carbon-free electricity in Minnesota by 2040 and simplifying the energy permitting process mirror current federal policy proposals. Expect to see Walz on the campaign trail linking his experience to the need for federal action.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

August 1, 2024

On Wednesday, July 31, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved a permitting and grid development package, spearheaded by Chair Joe Manchin (I-WV) and Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY). The bipartisan bill paves the way for renewable energy projects, oil and gas leases, and grid improvements, as well as reversing the Biden administration’s pause on liquefied natural gas export permits. This legislative progress aligns with the U.S. Department of Energy’s allocation of $30 million in initial funding to the Appalachian hydrogen hub, which aims to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions through hydrogen fueling stations and carbon storage sites. However, environmental groups are pushing back against the Manchin-Barrasso permitting bill as well as newly proposed exemptions to the 45V hydrogen tax credits by Senate Democrats, arguing that these changes would undermine carbon-reduction goals. Simultaneously, the Biden administration is investing $575 million in federal grants to enhance climate resilience in coastal communities, indicating a comprehensive approach to addressing both immediate and long-term climate challenges through legislative, financial and infrastructural measures.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

July 26, 2024

Key topics in Akin’s July 2024 Sustainability/ESG Policy and Regulatory Update include:

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.