Legal and Policy Debrief: November 18th – December 3d

Updates:

As reported in our last Debrief, the European Parliament has adopted a final position on Omnibus I, aligning with far-right groups to heavily dilute the CSDDD.

Preceding this process was a culmination months of corporate and political pushback, from within the EU and from the outside, of mandatory due diligence legislation.

Recap: What is the European Parliament's final position on the CSDDD?

• Reduces the threshold for companies in scope under the CSDDD to 5000+ employees & 1.5 billion turnover.
• Removes the CSDDD obligation for companies to adopt a climate transition plans. This means that the European Parliament is not aligned with the European Council on this element of the law, opening the door for further watering down during the trilogue.
• Responsible disengagement made voluntary: a majority vote changed the wording of a provision on disengagement from 'shall' to 'can'.

The European Ombudsman has identified multiple different procedural shortcomingsduring the Omnibus process amounting to "maladministration", in response to a complaint filed by

There had been widely-shared criticism of how the Commission had handled the process of reassessing its sustainability legislations, criticising that the proposals were made without any public consultation, through disproportionately focussing on narrow industry interests and based on a lack of evidence.

Off the back of this, 8 NGOs filed a complaint to the EU watchdog concerning the legislative process under which Omnibus has been conducted.

Through its investigation, the European Ombudsman Teresa Anjinho found the EU's procedural shortcomings amount to "maladministration". The inquiry confirmed that the Commission failed to sufficiently justify the "urgency" of the legislative process to the public under which it had proposed the Omnibus changes, failed to put in place a "transparent, evidence-based and inclusive" preparation of the process and failed to keep proper consistency checks of whether the proposal was in line with the EU's climate goals, thus acting in an accountable manner.

Further Reading/ Listening:

SOMO analysis: How an alliance of powerful US companies plotted to destroy the CSDDD.

Leaked documents analysed by SOMO reveal how an alliance of eleven companies, including Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Koch, Inc., worked under the guise of a “Competitiveness Roundtable” to get the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) either scrapped or massively diluted.

The companies, most of which are headquartered in the US and operate in the fossil fuel sector, aimed to “divide and conquer in the Council”, sideline “stubborn” European Commission departments, and push the European People’s Party (EPP) in the European Parliament “to side with the right-wing parties as much as possible”.

UNDP report: Human Rights vs. Competitiveness: A False Dilemma?

The report, published by the UNDP, UNDP B+HR and World Benchmarking Alliance at the beginning of the month, is five-year study of 235 global companies, examining how sustainability practices impact competitiveness. The report concludes that integrating sustainability practices such a HRDD into a business model strengthens resilience, drives growth and creates long-term value.

This empirical evdience of "tangible financial benefits for companies that strengthen their human rights performance," undermines the underlying principle behind the Omnibus that the implementation of HREDD reduces competitiveness.

Timeline:

• November - December 2025: 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:

The EU Parliament backs another one-year delay to the EUDR anti-deforestation law.

On the 19th of November, the EU Council adopted its negotiating mandate on a revision of the EUDR based on a renewed proposal by the Danish presidency. This new proposal aims to delay the application of the law until the end of 2026 and task the EU Commission with a simplification review by 30 April 2026.

A week later, on November 26th, the parliament voted to endorse the proposal by the Council with a majority largely formed by the EPP together with far-right political groups.

These developments come after the Commission had initially cited IT issues to justify a delayed application of the law, in spite of criticism of NGOs and global food companies which urged the Commission to not reopen, delay, or tweak the Regulation.

Next steps: the Council and the Parliament have now rejected the Commission's initial proposal for a grace period of six months. Trilogue negotiations must now commence and finish before the EUDR enters into application on 30 December 2025.

Over 100 businesses, investors & civil society voices have signed a joint statement calling for the EU to implement the EU Deforestation Regulation now.

The joint letter condemns the Council of the EU and European Parliament for 'proposing far-reaching changes that distort the objective of the Commission’s proposal and throw the future of the EUDR into question, while putting additional administrative burden on companies', rather than pusuing 'technical adjustments adopted swiftly' to improve implementation, clarity and fairness of the IT system.'

The groups call on the European Commission to regain control of the legislative process and commit unequivocally to implementing the EUDR without further delays or dilution. Their message is clear: every attempt to delay and weaken the EUDR risks wasting years of work and millions invested by businesses preparing for compliance.

Further Reading/Listening:

Reuters: Indonesians blame deforestation for devastating floods

In this article, environmental experts claim that the affects of the tropical storm in the Malacca Strait that hit Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand, killing more than 800 people, were worsened by climate change, and in particular, deforestation.

Areas affected by deforestation, such as Sumatra, experienced disproportionately high death tolls during the floods.

For instance, 'environment-focused group JATAM said its analysis of satellite imagery showed construction for the China-funded 510MW Batang Toru hydropower plant, planned to begin operating in 2026, contributed to the destruction.'

This human rights and environmental emergency underlines the need for joined up reponses to climate change prevention and corporate accountability (through robustly enforced deforestation regulations).

New proposed timeline [according to fresh revisions]:

• 30 June 2025: Country benchmarking act adopted
• By 30 April 2026: Simplification review of the EUDR which should be accompanied by a legislative proposal where deemed appropriate.
• 30 December 2026: Obligations stemming from the regulation will be binding for large operators and traders
• 30 June 2027: Obligations stemming from the regulation will be binding for micro- and small enterprises

---

• In Brazil, COP30 concluded after two weeks of negotiations and going overtime to agree on a final text. With pathways to keep global temperature rise within 1.5°C off track, many had hoped this COP would create a breakthrough on key themes to address mitigation and adaptation.
• A key disappointment was the leaving out of any language that reflected the calls for a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels.
• On the other hand, some key wins included a larger representation of Indigenous Peoples than at previous COPs, both within the negotiations and in the negotiated texts
• The COP also established a rights-based just transition mechanism (the Belém Action Mechanism) that aims to enable inclusive and equitable transitions.
• Another positive result of the work of the Just Transition Working Programme (JTWP) is the recognition of the need to respect Indigenous Peoples' Rights and FPIC, aspects omitted from the overall final text.

---

EU Forced Labour Regulation (EUFLR)

Updates:

The Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery and other UN mandate holders published a communication on the EU Forced Labour Regulation guidelines.

This new output highlights several areas that warrant 'further clarification and strengthening' to ensure that the guidelines to be issued by 14 June 2026 pursuant to article 11 of the EUFLR are aligned with the States’ obligations under international human rights law.

In partership with the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises and the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, the Special Rapporteur, calls for the EU to consider the following recommendations:

• Ensure responsible disengagement and rights based remediation.
• Establish clear evidentiary standards, and procedural parameters: The SR sets out that “credible source” should' clearly include reports from workers’ organisations including trade unions, civil society organisations, workers, and the media, recognising the fact that forced labour cases often rely on indirect or secondary evidence. In case of conflicting sources, a balance of probabilities test should guide decision making.'
• Consider the use of rebuttable presumptions (guideline under article 11(c): – 'particularly in cases of state-imposed or systemic forced labour, where obtaining direct evidence is inherently difficult – to strengthen enforcement effectiveness and align with the preventive rationale of international human-rights and labour standards.'
• Ensure appropriate expertise and meaningful stakeholder participation in forced labour investigations.
• Enhance transparency and ensuring effective access to customs data.
• Clarify context-specific approaches to responsible disengagement in state imposed forced labour.

The ILO has issued a 2025 revision of its indicators of forced labor, identifying state-imposed forced labour as a distinct category, which may not fall nearly into the 11 indicators.

In this update, state-imposed forced labour is used as a case study to exemplify the limitations of the 11 indicators in particular contexts. The ILO specifies that, in cases of SIFL, 'indicators of forced labour, such as deception, retention of documents, or threats by employers or recruiters, may not apply in the same way.'

As Daniel Murphy writes, the new guidance is a reminder that the ILO's indicators 'aren't operational .... and nor are they intended to be exhaustive.'

Further Reading:

New Anti-Slavery International et al. briefing on 'Conducting Human Rights Due Diligence in Relation to State Imposed Forced Labour'.

This new briefing, co-written with Cotton Campaign, European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights e.V. (ECCHR), Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF), Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region, Global Labor Justice, La Strada International, and turkmen.news, aims to inform the European Commission's forthcoming due diligence and guidance on state-imposed forced labour, as outlined in Article 11(f) of the EU Forced Labour Regulation.

Global Rights Compliance's event report on their 'EUFLR Evidentiary Standards Roundtable'.

Last month, Global Rights Compliance (GRC) brought together leading experts - including forced labour investigators, legal practitioners, academics, civil society actors, corporate accountability specialists and regulatory representatives, to examine one of the most challenging aspects of the EUFLR: what evidentiary standards and thresholds are needed to effectively identify and act on cases of forced labour, particularly in contexts of state-imposed forced labour or similar restrictive environments where evidence is obscured.

This briefing provides key takeaways from the all-day session, including the need for flexibility, the necessity of tailored approaches to state-imposed forced labour and the importance of international alignment.

Implementation timeline:

• June 2026: EU Commission to publish guidelines, including a forced labour risk database.
• 14 December 2027: law becomes applicable.

---

Last week, Beyond's sister organisation Global Rights Complaince joined leading legal experts and advocates at the United Nation Forum on Business and Human Rights in Geneva to call for greater attention on state-imposed forced labour (SIFL) in the Uyghur Region – after this year’s Forum again failed to formally include the issue on its agenda.

Representatives from GRC, the Uyghur Youth Initiative and members of the Coalition to End Forced Labour in the Uyghur Region jointly attended the forum with the goal of ensuring that Uyghur voices, often marginalised through systematic transnational repression, are brought into the policy discussion.

Throughout the week, these advocates attended sessions and held meetings – including with the UN’s Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery– to call for more concerted international attention to state-imposed forced labour.

Read the press briefing and watch our video statement to learn more about the mission and our impact.