A Critical Analysis of the CSDDD and Directive 2026/470, in Light of Legal Interpretivism, EU Values and Objectives
(2026) JURM02 20261Faculty of Law
Department of Law
- Abstract
- Globalized economics have resulted in intricate global value chains carrying
systemic risks of adverse human rights impacts. To address this, the EU
adopted the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) in
June 2024, establishing mandatory human rights due diligence for covered
companies. However, following a regulatory simplification agenda aimed at
reducing corporate administrative burdens, the Union enacted Directive
2026/470 in February 2026, introducing substantive modifications to the
CSDDD framework.
This thesis critically analyzes the amendments introduced by Directive
2026/470 to the CSDDD, focusing specifically on its scope, due diligence
obligations and enforcement mechanisms. This, with the... (More) - Globalized economics have resulted in intricate global value chains carrying
systemic risks of adverse human rights impacts. To address this, the EU
adopted the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) in
June 2024, establishing mandatory human rights due diligence for covered
companies. However, following a regulatory simplification agenda aimed at
reducing corporate administrative burdens, the Union enacted Directive
2026/470 in February 2026, introducing substantive modifications to the
CSDDD framework.
This thesis critically analyzes the amendments introduced by Directive
2026/470 to the CSDDD, focusing specifically on its scope, due diligence
obligations and enforcement mechanisms. This, with the obligations including implementation of due diligence processes, identification and assessment
of risks, prioritization of impacts, and addressing potential and actual adverse
impacts. To outline the material scope, the obligation-defining term ‘appropriate measures’ is examined. Moreover, the thesis answers the core research
question: Do the amendments introduced by Directive 2026/470 align with
the theory of legal interpretivism, and are they consistent with the foundational objectives and fundamental values of the European Union?
It can be concluded that Directive 2026/470 introduces amendments in line
with the objectives of reducing administrative burdens and strengthening the
EU competitiveness, shifting focus away from human rights protection. In
line with this, Directive 2026/470 introduces a considerable reduction of the
scope, comparable to Dworkin's arbitrary checkerboard laws. It further narrows the obligation to identify and assess risks, potentially compromising access to evidence for victims of adverse impacts. In addition to this, it removes
the harmonised civil liability regime, lowers the limit for the pecuniary penalties of the public enforcement and removes the requirement of terminating
business relationships as a last resort. These overall amendments fail to align
with legal interpretivism, as well as the objectives and values of the Union. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9227403
- author
- Tengqvist, Alva LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- JURM02 20261
- year
- 2026
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- EU law, Directive 2026/470, CSDDD, Fundamental rights, Human Rights, Due diligence, Legal interpretivism
- language
- English
- id
- 9227403
- date added to LUP
- 2026-06-11 17:52:35
- date last changed
- 2026-06-11 17:52:35
@misc{9227403,
abstract = {{Globalized economics have resulted in intricate global value chains carrying
systemic risks of adverse human rights impacts. To address this, the EU
adopted the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) in
June 2024, establishing mandatory human rights due diligence for covered
companies. However, following a regulatory simplification agenda aimed at
reducing corporate administrative burdens, the Union enacted Directive
2026/470 in February 2026, introducing substantive modifications to the
CSDDD framework.
This thesis critically analyzes the amendments introduced by Directive
2026/470 to the CSDDD, focusing specifically on its scope, due diligence
obligations and enforcement mechanisms. This, with the obligations including implementation of due diligence processes, identification and assessment
of risks, prioritization of impacts, and addressing potential and actual adverse
impacts. To outline the material scope, the obligation-defining term ‘appropriate measures’ is examined. Moreover, the thesis answers the core research
question: Do the amendments introduced by Directive 2026/470 align with
the theory of legal interpretivism, and are they consistent with the foundational objectives and fundamental values of the European Union?
It can be concluded that Directive 2026/470 introduces amendments in line
with the objectives of reducing administrative burdens and strengthening the
EU competitiveness, shifting focus away from human rights protection. In
line with this, Directive 2026/470 introduces a considerable reduction of the
scope, comparable to Dworkin's arbitrary checkerboard laws. It further narrows the obligation to identify and assess risks, potentially compromising access to evidence for victims of adverse impacts. In addition to this, it removes
the harmonised civil liability regime, lowers the limit for the pecuniary penalties of the public enforcement and removes the requirement of terminating
business relationships as a last resort. These overall amendments fail to align
with legal interpretivism, as well as the objectives and values of the Union.}},
author = {{Tengqvist, Alva}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{A Critical Analysis of the CSDDD and Directive 2026/470, in Light of Legal Interpretivism, EU Values and Objectives}},
year = {{2026}},
}