Author: Alessia Palladino, PhD Researcher with the School of Law and Criminology and the ALL Institute, Research Funded by Research Ireland – Environmental Protection Agency
On November 13th, 2025, the European Parliament agreed to adopt a dramatic weakening of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), as part of the European Union’s Omnibus I package. As this happens on the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter), it presents an occasion to take stock of the role of the Charter in advancing environmental rights in the European Union (EU).
The Charter proffers some apparently strong environmental protections on the face of it. In particular, Article 37 is focused entirely on environmental protection and mandates the integration of environmental interests within EU policies, reflecting the obligations introduced by Article 11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). However, as highlighted by both the Explanatory Notes to the Charter and academic scholarship, Article 37 only introduces a principle, and not a justiciable individual right to a healthy environment. Alongside this, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), heavily influenced by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has ‘greened’ human rights provisions. In other words, it has interpreted other rights included in the Charter (specifically, Articles 7, 11, 17 and 42 in particular) to protect environmental interests. This is largely due to the tight link that the Charter has to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) through Article 52(3) of the Charter, which requires that Charter rights corresponding to ECHR rights must be given the same meaning and scope. As the European Court of Human Rights has greened ECHR rights (e.g. on the right to life), so too must the CJEU green the corresponding Charter rights.
Nonetheless, this system allows for retrograde measures, including the abovementioned watering down of the CSDDD and CSRD. Specifically, while the CSDDD laid down obligations for companies regarding actions adverse to the environment and human rights, and the obligation for companies to adopt a transition plan to achieve the Paris Agreement goals in relation to climate change, the CSRD introduced monitoring and reporting obligations regarding environmental, social and governance matters. The two Directives therefore encapsulate corporate social responsibility, with a specific focus on the environment. However, the vote adopted by the European Parliament in November now threatens this, and while the co-legislators still need to adopt the Omnibus I package, it is highly possible that it will happen, especially in light of the recent political agreement between the European Parliament and the Member States on the matter. In this case, then sustainability and social reporting will be ‘lighter and only necessary for larger companies’, and due diligence obligations ‘would apply only to very large EU and non-EU corporations’. Additionally, climate transition plans would not be required anymore by any type of company. [MM1] [AP2] It is therefore clear that these amendments would substantially weaken the content of both Directives, thereby hindering the achievement of the very objective that they initially presented.
While different explanations can be provided for this phenomenon, including the positioning of right and far right parties when it comes to environmental matters, a relevant factor is also sustainable development and the role it has in environmental law and policy making.
Sustainable development derived from international environmental law, but quickly became one of the overarching principles within the European context as well, to the point that it is included in the Charter (Preamble and Article 37), as well as in the TFEU (Article 11) and in the Treaty on European Union (Preamble, Article 3 and Article 21). It broadly speaking entails two components: that development should be sustainable and therefore able to meet the needs of current generations without compromising the needs of future generations; and that there is a balance across three pillars: environmental, social and economic.
However, many scholars criticise sustainable development for a variety of reasons. First, it must be recognised the fuzzy and unclear nature of sustainable development. There is considerable debate as to how the three pillars relate to each other, e.g. do they overlap, operate in parallel or nest? It is therefore difficult to decide which of these three pillars is to be prioritised and ultimately how to balance them, especially where decision makers do not share the same values or priorities. This has, just like in the case of the amendments to the CSDDD and CSRD, frequently led lawmakers to prioritise short-term (economic) objectives over longer-term (environmental) ones. Additionally, the uncertain definition of sustainable development also led lawmakers to use it as an umbrella concept under which a variety of actions could be pursued, including conflicting ones.
Furthermore, and most importantly for this blogpost, sustainable development is ‘unable to break free from the neoliberal mindset that views nature as a reservoir of capital and services that must be priced in order to be valued and protected’. Sustainable development is, indeed, first and foremost based on development, requiring a continuous economic growth on a planet that only presents a finite number of resources. Indeed, it should be highlighted that the concept of ‘sustainability’ is even included within the titles of the two Directives, yet the amendments under the Omnibus I package are focused on increasing competitiveness and prosperity, hence ultimately economic development.
The proposed amendments to the CSDDD and CSRD therefore highlight the real risk to the environment of relying on sustainable development as a guiding principle in environmental law. The Charter is not a magic wand that can prevent any breaches of human rights, but there is a significant concern that including sustainable development within Article 37 and its Preamble may limit the value of the duty therein and can ultimately result in a gateway to the prioritisation strictly economic interests, contrary to purely environmental objectives. The inclusion of a stronger duty or clearly expressed environmental rights within the Charter could have real impacts on future pathways for EU environmental policy and law, including potential prevention of regressive measures such as those now proposed with respect to these two Directives.
