Making human rights due diligence a legal requirement for companies including systems to identify, assess, mitigate or manage human rights risks and impacts to improve that process over time and to disclose the risks and impacts, the steps taken and the results.
By endorsing this statement, the entity demonstrates support for the Omnibus Simplification Package designed to lower the level of ambition of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.
Based on the document "How simplification can drive ambition, reduce burden, and strengthen Europe’s competitiveness, June 2025" in which Eurogas is listed as a signatory, it states: "The proposed Simplification Omnibus Package represents a crucial opportunity to restore regulatory clarity and enable meaningful action on the ground." "As representatives of sectors essential to the energy transition, industrial innovation, and Europe's economic resilience, we call on policymakers to safeguard and reinforce the simplification measures proposed-and to resist any efforts to reintroduce complexity." "Currently, the interplay between the CSRD, CSDDD, and the EU Taxonomy creates a fragmented and burdensome landscape. Overlapping, overly prescriptive and detailed disclosure and due diligence requirements risk shifting high skilled resources away from real-world impact and toward navigating compliance complexities. The proposed Simplification Omnibus Package represents a timely and necessary opportunity to restore clarity and enable meaningful implementation."
The entity supports the Omnibus Simplification Package, which is designed to lower the level of ambition of the CSDDD.
"IOGP Europe strongly supports the European Commission’s commitment to simplifying and reducing reporting and compliance obligations (…) The upcoming Omnibus proposal presents a timely opportunity to readjust course (…) : The Omnibus proposal will be the opportunity for the European Commission to drive real simplification while restoring EU's attractiveness and competitiveness for business, without compromising on achieving its sustainability goals."
The entity supports the Omnibus Simplification Package, which is designed to lower the level of ambition of the CSDDD. However, they also call for a principles-based approach that is aligned with international standards.
"The adoption of the first Omnibus Simplification package marks a long-overdue pivot toward a proportionate and business-conscious regulatory environment. It reflects an overall growing recognition that Europe’s regulatory landscape must evolve — not by lowering ambition, but by reducing fragmentation, administrative complexity, and disproportionate burdens that risk undermining investment and operational capacity.""Shift towards a principles-based approach in the application of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) in line with international authoritative standards (e.g. UNGP and OECD), advocating for a reduction in the amount of prescriptive guidance and FAQs."
The entity supports a 'harmonized' approach to mandatory due diligence, but does not explicitly support or oppose the development of legislation.
"IOGP supports a harmonized European approach to corporate sustainability due diligence legislation and believes companies should not risk being subject to competing or duplicated requirements."
The entity supports the introduction of an EU legal framework in order to create a level playing field, and calls for alignment with the UNGPs.
In response to consultation Q2: "Yes, an EU legal framework is needed." "A coordinated European approach between states is essential to ensure that companies are not subject to competing and duplicated requirements in different Member States. We therefore support ongoing discussion at EU level for harmonizing efforts."Q 14: "EU due diligence measures should instead – in line with the UNGPs – be aimed at organizations identifying and preventing or mitigating risks of specific impacts to specific people (or environments) in specific operating contexts and accounting for the effectiveness of those actions. This would include, where relevant, factoring in external, systemic issues – such as vulnerability of communities potentially impacted by a project – when determining appropriate measures to prevent or mitigate risks related to such project."
By endorsing this joint statement, the entity demonstrates support for the Omnibus Simplification Package designed to lower the level of ambition and delay the implementation of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.
The document states that 'The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (“CS3D”), undoubtedly the flagship legislation adopted under the Green Deal, is particularly ambitious in terms of its scope thereby creating challenging and impactful new obligations for businesses with global value chains and in some instances rife unintended repercussions for the real economy in the EU and in third countries. ... We, the undersigned European associations representing companies and sectors impacted by the CS3D, welcome the European Commission’s intention to put administrative burden relief and simplification at the heart of its agenda'. It also calls for extending the implementation phase: 'Guidelines and implementing legislation should be adopted at least two years before compliance with legislation becomes mandatory or the transition period should be extended'.
Requiring Human rights due diligence of all companies, regardless of sector and size, while still reflecting their individual circumstances.
The entity calls to limit the scope of companies covered by the Directive.
"Limit application to EU companies and subsidiaries of non-EU companies doing business within the borders of the EU. Parent company level reporting by companies headquartered outside the EU is possible on a voluntary basis.""Applying the Directive to both EU and non-EU companies operating within the EU helps ensure a level playing field. However, extending its scope beyond these companies risks infringing on the sovereignty of other countries, particularly where there is no clear connection to the EU. "
The entity calls for exemptions to the scope of companies covered by the Directive.
"Focus the CSDDD on key environmental and human rights risks, with exemptions for non-EU companies subject to comparable regulations."
The entity calls for the inclusion of companies across all industries, and of all sizes, regardless of ownership type.
Q2: "Any new framework should: ... be cross-industry and relevant to both SMEs and large businesses alike, whether publicly-, privately- of state-owned. This demands a pragmatic framework and flexibility in order to be applicable to different industries and business sizes, as there is no such thing as one size fits all."
Implementing an enforcement mechanism where companies fail to carry out due diligence as described.
The entity has not made any further statements on enforcement mechanisms. By endorsing this statement, they demonstrate that they support the simplification of an enforcement mechanism (here civil liability).
Based on the document "How simplification can drive ambition, reduce burden, and strengthen Europe’s competitiveness, June 2025" in which the entity is listed as a signatory, it states: "We welcome the removal of the harmonised EU civil liability regime under Article 29 of the CSDDD. However, residual elements, such as joint liability, broad evidentiary obligations, and unclear thresholds for disclosure, still undermine legal certainty and contradict the Commission’s own simplification objectives." "We believe that, to maintain coherence and subsidiarity, civil liability should be governed by national systems."
The entity calls for limitations on who can file a complaint against a company and advocates for fines to be a measure of last resort.
"Ensure that fining companies under this Directive remains a measure of last resort.""Anyone can submit a complaint, and complainants do not need to demonstrate that they have any connection to, or have suffered damage caused by, the alleged failure in order to submit a substantiated concern.... The text should provide for a reasonable mechanism for filtering out baseless complaints/concerns at an early stage."
The entity opposes pecuniary sanctions being linked to company turnover and calls to limit the scope of enforcement to activities with a direct EU link.
"For the supervisory authority, extraterritorial jurisdiction is provided by reference to the in-scope entities without limiting this to activities linked to the EU. It should be specified that for claims pertaining to non-EU companies, only claims that have sufficient nexus with the EU can be brought before a supervisory authority. Therefore, a new paragraph limiting the scope of Art. 2(2) entities to activities linked to the EU should be added to Art. 19.""Article 20(3) states that where pecuniary sanctions are levied by a supervising authority they must always be based on turnover. This seems inappropriately prescriptive and may be disproportionate in relation to the compliance failure, its consequences and attempts to remedy could all vary enormously. Therefore, a fine should only be imposed if a company has ignored a formal instruction by the supervisory authorities, and/or if fines are capped and not linked to revenue."
The entity supports the implementation of enforcement mechanisms at the Member State level.
Q 19a: "Other" - "We agree there should be an enforcement mechanism but it does not follow that this needs to be prescribed at EU level. It could be left to Member States to determine, in accordance with their existing legal frameworks, which measures or penalties for infringement of the due diligence obligation are required to be effective, proportionate and dissuasive."
Including in the duties of directors and company law obligations to avoid human rights impacts or “harms”.
The entity calls for limitations to directors' duties and opposes the inclusion of obligations in relation to human rights impacts or harms.
"Directors’ duties should be limited to due diligence policy and companies should have the flexibility to choose how they meet their sustainability requirements. Due diligence legislation should be limited to requiring directors to put in place a due diligence policy. It should not impose sustainability related requirements on companies, nor should it impose additional liability on individual directors overlapping or conflicting with existing domestic liability regimes concerning the same matter."
The entity is opposed to the inclusion of directors' duties in relation to human rights impacts or harms.
Q6: 'disagree to some extent' to each of the options. ""We believe that, if any EU level requirement is introduced, it should be applied to companies themselves rather than to individual directors."Q7 & 8: 'strongly disagree' - they do not support the EU imposing such requirements on individual directors.
Require companies to provide remedy for human rights impacts they have caused or contributed to.
The entity calls to reduce/limit the requirement for companies to provide remediation.
"any obligation to remedy an adverse impact under Art. 8 should only arise if the risk that materialized was identifiable and the company failed to take appropriate measures to prevent the risk from materializing. Any different concept would turn the “obligation of means” envisaged by Recital 15 into an obligation to guarantee results. It should be noted that issues related to covering the entire value chain would be aggravated if civil liability or the remedy obligations are attached to the due diligence obligations as proposed."
The entity states that appropriate due diligence measures should include provisions for access to remedy and that grievance mechanisms should be required by law.
Q 19a: "Companies should be able to demonstrate that they have put in place appropriate due diligence measures in application of international recognized good practice, and that where a human rights impact has occurred despite such appropriate measures there are provisions for access to remedy. Access to remedy can be facilitated through accessible and effective operational-level grievance procedures. Primary remedies may be best delivered on the ground close to operations through effective and appropriate grievance mechanisms. Requirements to have such grievance mechanisms should be clearly defined in the law."
Require companies to provide grievance mechanisms for all stakeholders including those in the value chain.
The entity calls for the CSDDD to clearly define requirements to have operational-level grievance mechanisms.
Q 19a: "Access to remedy can be facilitated through accessible and effective operational-level grievance procedures. Primary remedies may be best delivered on the ground close to operations through effective and appropriate grievance mechanisms. Requirements to have such grievance mechanisms should be clearly defined in the law."20 c: "other" - "Companies are best placed to decide which mechanisms are the most appropriate to use in their specific circumstances and for specific stakeholders".
Enabling judicial enforcement with liability and compensation in case of harm caused by not fulfilling the due diligence obligations.
By endorsing this statement, the entity demonstrates that they support the simplification of liability duties, oppose EU harmonised civil liability, and call for the deletion of Article 29 of the directive.
Based on the document "How simplification can drive ambition, reduce burden, and strengthen Europe’s competitiveness, June 2025" in which the entity is listed as a signatory, it states: "We welcome the removal of the harmonised EU civil liability regime under Article 29 of the CSDDD. However, residual elements, such as joint liability, broad evidentiary obligations, and unclear thresholds for disclosure, still undermine legal certainty and contradict the Commission’s own simplification objectives." "We believe that, to maintain coherence and subsidiarity, civil liability should be governed by national systems." "We call for the deletion of Article 29 of the CSDDD"
The entity calls for the explicit removal of civil liability provisions in the Directive and calls for restrictions on who can bring forward litigation.
"Fully delete Article 29 to ensure that companies will be subject to national liability regimes. (…) By removing the civil liability provisions from the Directive, we can clarify that they fall under Member States’ liability laws.""Restrict the litigation mechanism to avoid potential abuse. Anyone can submit a complaint, and complainants do not need to demonstrate that they have any connection to, or have suffered damage caused by, the alleged failure in order to submit a substantiated concern.... The text should provide for a reasonable mechanism for filtering out baseless complaints/concerns at an early stage."
The entity calls to limit civil liability to instances where a company fails to put in place due diligence procedures. They advocate for the removal of civil society provisions in relation to other due diligence obligations included in the Directive.
"IOGP supports clear limitations regarding civil liability linked with the due diligence obligation." "Any civil liability, if adopted, should be based on a failure to put in place due diligence procedures in accordance with the law, damages actually incurred, and a direct causal link between the two in accordance with Member States’ tort law."
The entity supports the inclusion of civil liability when harm occurs as a direct result of a failure to conduct appropriate due diligence. However they state that companies should be able to comply with due diligence duties through contractor/supplier statements and that compensation should be limited to damages occurred.
Q2: Any new framework should: ... be accompanied by a reasonable scope of liability recognising the complexity of extended value chains. Companies should not be considered to be in breach of any rule or regulation for harm in their value chain or exposed to liability when they have taken reasonable due diligence measures; additionally, companies should be entitled, as one possible step, to comply with their due diligence duties by e.g. obtaining their contractors’/partners’ respective statements of compliance; "Q 19a: As for the role of the courts (Civil and Criminal liability), due diligence legislation should not impose an absolute obligation (results-based obligation) on companies to prevent all violations of human rights irrespective of the circumstances, but an obligation of means, whereby companies are expected to conduct appropriate due diligence. Any liability connected with the due diligence obligation should be based on damages caused as a direct result of failure to put appropriate due diligence measures in place. Any Civil liability (tort) should be based on usual civil law requirements: failure to put in place due diligence procedures in accordance with the law (or manifest insufficiency of such processes), damages occurred and a direct causal link between the two. It would not be appropriate to impose criminal sanctions in relation to a failure to conduct due diligence..."
Enable and support effective remedy by allowing victims of the actions of subsidiaries outside the parent company’s home country to sue the parent company if victims are not able to find remedy in their own country.
The entity calls for the full removal of extraterritorial jurisdiction for civil claims.
"Regarding civil liability, Art. 22(5) seeks to have effects outside the EU’s territorial jurisdiction. This is problematic because it could lead to parallel litigation processes ... If civil liability is included, Art. 22(5) should be deleted."
The entity calls for the strict exclusion of extraterritorial jurisdiction for civil claims.
19a: "Any proposal to modify EU legislation to introduce the option of bringing tort/negligence claims before European national courts for damages where the place of the event that gave rise to such damages occurred outside of the EU, should be strictly excluded. EU courts have neither the resources nor the authority to manage claims which should be properly brought before national courts outside Europe."
Require companies to implement a due diligence process covering their value chain to identify, prevent, mitigate and remediate human rights impacts and improve that practice over time.
By endorsing this statement, the entity demonstrates that they question the feasibility of a due diligence process covering the value chain and support reducing the scope of the proposal.
Based on the document "How simplification can drive ambition, reduce burden, and strengthen Europe’s competitiveness, June 2025" in which the entity is listed as a signatory, it states: "companies could be held accountable for harms caused exclusively by independent partners several tiers down the value chain, even when they have taken all due measures under the Directive. This disincentivises engagement, creates litigation exposure, and duplicates existing national liability frameworks." "Obtaining granular ESG data from these suppliers, especially SMEs or those in jurisdictions with different legal systems, is often not just difficult, but impossible. Companies report that suppliers are increasingly unwilling to disclose information due to commercial sensitivity or regulatory conflict. We welcome the introduction of a value chain 'cap' and recommend further clarification on what constitutes “commonly shared information” and how proportionality principles will apply — particularly for non-EU data collection. Without this, the reporting burden may result in unintended supplier disengagement and "concentration risks"
The entity advocates to reduce the value chain scope by limiting due diligence to first tier suppliers and removing downstream activities.
"Due diligence obligations should cover only direct contractual suppliers (upstream), not downstream. The proposed requirement to implement a due diligence system covering the entire value chain as per Art. 1(a) appears to be an unreasonable burden on companies. (…). A legally mandated course of downstream due diligence requiring companies to conduct due diligence on the entirety of their downstream value chain - beyond where otherwise required by law or individual company commitments - would be overly complex and expensive, if not impossible."
The entity calls to decrease the scope of supply chains to only include direct company operations, subsidiaries, and first tier suppliers.
Q2: "in line with the rule of law principles of legal certainty and clarity, avoid overly broad wording and clearly limit the scope of legally required due diligence system to activities within companies’ control or where there is a direct contractual supplier relationship only (own activities, those of its controlled subsidiaries, first tier of suppliers);" "Due diligence in relation to use of products would be difficult to achieve and could effectively require companies to dictate the consumption practices of other companies and individuals, many of whom will be unknown to the company itself."Q 14: As far as the definition of “business relationships” is concerned, the duty to implement a due diligence system should only cover company’s activities and that of controlled entities and first tier suppliers, not the full supply chain, particularly if liability is attached to due diligence obligations as companies typically do not have control over, or contractual relationships with, the subcontractors of suppliers."
Require that companies implement contract clauses and Code of Conduct with business partners clarifying obligations to avoid and to address human rights harms.
The entity calls for the removal of contractual clauses that outline disengagement as a last resort.
"Recital 32 states that “this Directive should ensure that disengagement is a last-resort action”. However, maintaining certain business relationships in the presence of human rights violations could expose companies to risks of third-party claims or significant reputational damage. Therefore, IOGP deems it important that such decisions are left to the discretion of companies to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis."
The signatories call for avoid the extension of the scope of CS3D during implementation and introduction of guidance on model contract clauses.
The statement indicates that 'competitiveness assessment that leads to the new simplification should ensure that upcoming implementing legislation and guidance (…) are co-developed to address gaps or excessively burdensome provisions, rather than introduce additional layers of complexity or de facto extend the scope of the CS3D'.
Require that companies identify their stakeholders and their interests.
The entity calls for a narrower definition of "stakeholders" and for NGOs to have to prove their ability to speak on behalf of claimants.
"The definition of “stakeholders” (Art. 3(n)) is currently so broad that it could apply to anyone. It needs to be sufficiently delimited to enable proportionate and prioritized stakeholder engagement by companies and allow enforcement to focus on complaints by those with legitimate complaints with a direct, causal link to a failure to meet the obligations of due diligence by the company against which they are raised. Further, the definition needs to reflect the difficulties a company may have when finding the “right stakeholders” in particular in countries where the freedom of coalition is restricted and in which companies need to deal with state-run organizations. Finally, NGOs should be required to prove that they can speak on behalf of those they claim to represent."
The entity is not directly opposed to a company duty to identify stakeholders and their interests, but they call for flexibility in doing so and believe that companies themselves are best placed to make decisions around identifying and engaging stakeholders.
Q6: in relation to the identification of a company's stakeholders and their interests, "We believe that, if any EU level requirement is introduced, it should be applied to companies themselves rather than to individual directors."Q 5: "We strongly believe that companies should have the flexibility to decide (i) who their most relevant and potentially material stakeholder groups are; (ii) the most appropriate and proportionate way to communicate or engage with each group; and (iii) how to take into account the interests or views of each group. Companies are best placed to make these assessments."
Require directors to establish and apply mechanisms or, where they already exist for employees for example, use existing information and consultation channels for engaging with stakeholders.
The entity is opposed to the inclusion of directors' duties to establish and apply mechanisms to engage with stakeholders.
Q20a: in relation to requiring directors to establish and apply mechanisms for engaging with stakeholders, the entity responded, "strongly disagree". "The oil & gas industry is aware of the growing expectations from investors and civil society to engage with stakeholders and integrate their interests into companies’ decision-making. A company’s direct stakeholders – whether at corporate strategy or an individual project level – cover a vast array of parties, ranging from employees to local communities, to NGOs, to business partners, to public authorities, to financial institutions and investors. Indirect stakeholders may be an even broader group including those with indirect or induced economic interests in the project, those benefiting from tax revenues generated by the project, etc. EU legislation should not give rise to obligations which make impossible demands on companies to reconcile stakeholder interests. We strongly believe that companies should have the flexibility to decide (i) who their most relevant and potentially material stakeholder groups are; (ii) the most appropriate and proportionate way to communicate or engage with each group; and (iii) how to take into account the interests or views of each group. Companies are best placed to make these assessments."
Require that corporate directors should manage the human rights risks for the company in relation to stakeholders and their interest including on the long run.
The entity does not support the inclusion of directors' duties in relation to human rights risks and stakeholder interests.
Q6: 'disagree to some extent' - "A legal requirement to balance the interests of all stakeholders combined with risk of personal liability would create significant legal uncertainties. We believe that, if any EU level requirement is introduced, it should be applied to companies themselves rather than to individual directors (…) Any obligations in relation to dialogue with stakeholders should allow companies flexibility to implement such dialogue in the manner most appropriate to their activities."
| Legislation | Position |
|---|---|
| EU CSDDD | Not Supporting |
| Omnibus | Not Supporting |
| Member | Performance band |
|---|---|
| TotalEnergies SE | F |