This week, mounting political and corporate pressure from chocolate giants, such as Mondelez, puts the EUDR at risk of further delays and revisions. As the deadline for implementation moves closer, all eyes will be on the EU to see how it navigates this challenge.

Further deregulation is expected elsewhere, as the EU Council, Commission and Parliament's Omnibus negotiations approach. This week, NGOs continue to call on the bodies to terminate their fragmentary and deregulatory approach, in favour of true 'simplification.'

In more positive news, last week's landmark ICJ climate ruling, affirming that states can be held liable for failing to regulate private actors, promises to increase and strengthen global corporate accountability efforts. Experts believe that this advisory opinion will have significant impact on the rulings of lower court on damages and reparations, and investors analysis of financial risk of carbon-intensive projects. The ruling has the capacity to reverse the tide of governmental deregulation, climate inaction and corporate impunity.

Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD)

Updates:

The EU Council, Commission and Parliament prepare to negotiate on their individual Omnibus proposals.

Negotiations on the Omnibus proposal will continue after the summer, with final votes taking place towards the end of 2025 or early 2026.

The reduced scope of the Council, Commission and Parliament’s CSRD proposals are visualised in Andreas Rasche's graphic, claiming that the mass-exemptions amounts to “deregulation” of the law.

A landmark International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling says that states can be held liable for failing to regulate private actors in relation to climate emissions. This decision may impact the EU Parliament and Council’s attempt to amend the CSDDD to exclude the adoption and/or implementation (depending on the EU institution) of a climate transition plan.

In the ICJ’s advisory opinion, the court’s 15 judges unanimously ruled that governments must act “with the highest ambition”, compatible with the Paris goal of limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Crucially, liability for not doing this should attach not only to a nation’s own emissions but to those of companies within its jurisdiction.

While this opinion is not formally binding, the high court’s validation of the principle of climate harm will encourage lower courts to award damages and compel investors to ‘consider potential carbon liability as a much higher risk in any investment prospect.

The decision has been commended by António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, the IHRB, and climate justice organisations, such as Client Earth.

Andrew Griffiths has published a deep dive into the ruling, available here.

Notes/Further Reading:

Reuters: How Europe’s ambition to lead on corporate human rights ran into the sand

The piece retraces the history of the CSDDD to understand how the ‘new era of human rights protection across Europe’ ended before it began.

Shift Project calls for businesses to ‘press for coherent, risk-based reform’ to EU’s sustainability regulation that delivers outcomes'.

Many of the key proposed changes by the Commission, Council and the Parliament’s Rapporteur attempt to reduce compliance burdens on companies. However, Shift claims that in reality these changes would 'splinter corporate approaches to due diligence and reporting — pushing companies to create parallel, overlapping systems to meet different requirements that drain resources, confuse priorities and undermine impactful action.'

Implementation timeline:

  • October 2025: Planned vote on the Omnibus in the Plenary of European Parliament (date TBC)
  • Late 2025-2026: Trilogue on Omnibus (Parliament, Council and Commission) to negotiate final legal text.
  • From 2028 [delayed]: Companies with 5,000+ employees and a net turnover of 1 ,500 million EUR must comply.
  • From 2028 [unchanged]: Companies with 3,000+ employees and a net turnover of 900 million EUR must comply.
  • From 2029 [unchanged]: Companies with 1,000+ employees and a net turnover of 450 million EUR must comply.

EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR)

Updates:

Cadbury’s parent company, Mondelez, calls for the EU to delay EUDR implementation by a year

The vice president of corporate and government affairs for Europe at Mondelez, Massimiliano Di Domenico, expressed support in principle for the law, but urged policymakers to delay to “enable practical, inclusive, and effective implementation.”

Mondelez is reportedly lobbying other US chocolate companies to support this delay. However, companies such as Nestlé and Ferrero have signed an open letter supporting the law. Nestlé, in particular, has made clear that an additional delay would create uncertainty and negatively affect first-mover companies.

He shared reflections on his presentation on Linkedin.

NGO Earthsight claims that proposed changes to EUDR threaten to boost Russia’s illegal timber trade

Current simplification reform proposals made by EU member states seek ‘to introduce a new ‘no risk’ category with lighter rules, which Ganesh claims would be open to abuse by those seeking to circumvent sanctions by importing timber from Russia and Belarus.’

Eight of the countries pushing for these amendments already account for 67% of the illegal timber market in the EU currently subjected to sanctions.

Further Reading/Listening:

Forbes: Will the EU delay the EUDR once more?

Concerns rising about further delays to the EUDR, following leading companies' hesitations regarding compliance and the EU Member States simplification proposal.

Under mounting political and corporate pressure, will the EU be able to stay firm.

The Swiss government has issued two fact sheets on preparing for the EUDR

Implementation timeline:

  • 30 June 2025: Country benchmarking act adopted

Obligations stemming from the regulation will be binding from:

  • 30 December 2025: for large operators and traders
  • 30 June 2026: for micro- and small enterprises

EU Forced Labour Regulation (EUFLR)

Update:

The EU Commission has opened applications to NGOs, private sector organisations and other stakeholders to join its Informal Expert Group on Forced Labour.

Successful applicants will have the opportunity to help shape the new FLR guidelines, assist the Commission with delegated and implementing acts and exchange experience and best practices with the EU.

The deadline for applications is 15 September 2025.

Further Reading:

Across the channel, the UK’s Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report calling for sweeping reforms the UK modern slavery framework, amidst warnings the country may become a forced labour “dumping ground”.

The Committee recommends the UK government:

  • Introduce mandatory due diligence legislation and import bans on products made with state-imposed forced labour, with the inclusion of a rebuttable presumption.
  • Pass Compulsory forced labour provisions inclusion in future trade deals.
  • Develop measures to address gaps in the Solar Roadmap related to global supply chains and a viable strategy for tackling forced labour risks in the UK’s solar industry.

Implementation timeline:

  • December 2025: Member States will confirm their designated competent authorities to the Commission and other Member States, which will be made publicly available on the Forced Labour Single Portal.
  • By 14 June 2026: Launch of the Forced Labour Single Portal.
  • 2026: EU Commission to publish guidelines, including a forced labour risk database.
  • 14 December 2027: Law becomes applicable.

Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA)

Updates: None

Further reading:

Atlantic Council: The US should leverage economic statecraft tools to safeguard Uyghur rights and end Uyghur forced labour

Disclaimer: This newsletter is for general informational purposes only. It does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice.