On 13 October 2025, the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (also called the JURI Committee) authorised its report on the Omnibus I Requirements Proposal. While a consolidated textual content of the report is just not but accessible, the agreed draft text has been printed alongside the Parliament press release.
Here are the important thing factors agreed by the JURI Committee concerning amendments advised by the Commission to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or CS3D):
CSRD
-
CSRD scope: The JURI Committee has proposed elevated scoping thresholds for each EU and non-EU corporations from the Commission’s unique proposal.
-
EU corporations: Companies with greater than 1,000 staff and a internet annual turnover exceeding EUR 450 million will probably be in scope.
-
This additionally applies to sustainability reporting beneath the EU Taxonomy. For corporations now not lined by the CSRD, reporting could be voluntary, as proposed by the Commission.
-
Non-EU corporations: Companies with: (i) a internet annual turnover exceeding EUR 450 million generated within the EU (consistent with the Commission’s unique proposal); and (ii) an EU subsidiary or department with a internet annual turnover exceeding EUR 450 million (up from the Commission’s unique proposal), will probably be in scope.
-
-
CSRD worth chain cap: In-scope reporting corporations might solely request sustainability data from value-chain entities that which have under 1,000 staff and EUR 450 million internet turnover if: (i) that data is included beneath the voluntary sustainability reporting requirements, or (ii) that sustainability data is usually shared within the related sector. The CSDDD accommodates the same provision limiting the knowledge that may be requested.
-
Data sharing and blocking laws provisions: Where third-country legal guidelines limit non-EU corporations from sharing sustainability data with the EU in-scope reporting firm, the EU in-scope reporting firm might use default values. In this case, the EU in-scope reporting firm should clarify the actions undertaken (and any plans to acquire the info) and notify the supervisory authority accordingly.
-
Transition plans: No change to the Commission’s unique proposal.
CSDDD
-
CSDDD scope: Whereas the Commission’s unique proposal didn’t envisage any adjustments to the CSDDD scope, the JURI Committee needs to lift the thresholds for each EU and non-EU corporations.
-
EU corporations: Companies with greater than 5,000 staff and a internet annual turnover above EUR 1.5 billion.
-
Non-EU corporations: Companies with a internet annual turnover above EUR 1.5 billion within the EU.
-
-
Due diligence: The JURI Committee has adopted a risk-based strategy that seeks to extra carefully align with the UNGPs, requiring corporations to:
-
perform a scoping based mostly on moderately accessible data to establish common areas the place opposed impacts are most definitely to happen and to be most extreme throughout their very own operations, these of their subsidiaries and their enterprise companions (the place associated to their chains of actions); and
-
based mostly on the outcomes of the scoping, and the place the corporate has grounds to imagine that opposed impacts have arisen or might come up, perform an additional evaluation in areas the place opposed impacts have been recognized to be most definitely to happen and to be most extreme.
-
The JURI Committee’s proposal contains limitations on the flexibility for corporations to acquire data from their enterprise companions, notably the place the enterprise companion has fewer than 5,000 staff.
-
Transition plans: The JURI Committee has opted to retain the requirement for corporations to undertake transition plans beneath the CSDDD. However, the next key adjustments have been proposed:
-
Implementation: The reference to “implementing actions” has been deleted, which means the requirement focuses on adoption and disclosure of a transition plan fairly than its implementation. The JURI Committee has retained the requirement for transition plans to be up to date each 12 months accompanied by a short description of progress.
-
The reference to “best efforts” has been changed with the decrease customary of “reasonable efforts”, that are outlined as taking proportionate and cheap actions aiming to make sure compatibility with the transition to a sustainable economic system consistent with the Paris Agreement, with out having to exhaust all potential means at their disposal.
-
1.5℃: The reference to “1.5℃ consistent with the Paris Agreement” has been deleted. The JURI Committee as a substitute refers solely to the Paris Agreement and has additionally eliminated the reference to compatibility with intermediate and 2050 local weather neutrality targets in relation to the EU Climate Law.
-
Mandatory design options: Certain obligatory design options for transition plans have been retained. This contrasts with the Council, which proposes eradicating all obligatory design options and making them optionally available.
-
Role of supervisory authorities: Supervisory authorities are to oversee the adoption of transition plans not the implementation and design. The JURI Committee has included steering for supervisory authorities directing them to keep in mind, inter alia, the difficulties inherent in estimating future GHG emissions, the effectiveness and availability of sure local weather change mitigation applied sciences, levers and actions over time, and the general complexity and evolving nature of local weather transitioning.
-
Grace interval for transition plan adoption: Unlike the Council, which offers a two-year grace interval for obligatory transition plan adoption, no grace interval has been recognized in Parliament’s place.
-
-
Civil legal responsibility beneath the CSDDD: Under the JURI Committee’s proposal, in-scope corporations could be answerable for damages attributable to breaches of due diligence obligations beneath nationwide legislation, fairly than on the EU stage.
The JURI Committee proposes establishing a most penalty restrict of 5% of internet worldwide turnover (or consolidated worldwide turnover for sure firm classes). This represents a change from the Commission’s unique proposal, which eliminated the unique CSDDD provision that set the utmost at ‘not lower than 5%’ (a minimal most).
Next steps
The Council agreed its negotiating place (also called “general approach”) on 23 June 2025 (see our earlier weblog submit).
According to the European Parliament’s press launch, if the Parliament approves the JURI Committee’s mandate at its subsequent plenary session (anticipated on 20 October), the negotiations (trilogues) between the Parliament and Council on the ultimate textual content of the Omnibus I Requirements Proposal will start on 24 October.
The first trilogue is predicted to be a high-level assembly wherein the establishments (Parliament, Council, and Commission) current the details of their respective negotiating positions.
For extra data on the CSRD and Omnibus, see our CSRD Quick Guide and Omnibus Tracker.