Sustainability summer update: developments in legislation and enforcement

So far, this summer has brought several notable sustainability developments in legislation and enforcement. In this sustainability update, we highlight three: (i) the public consultation on the Dutch CSDDD implementing bill (Wivo 2); (ii) the European Commission's adoption of revised CSRD sustainability reporting standards; and (iii) two Dutch developments on environmental crime, reflecting the Netherlands Public Prosecutions Service's current focus on environmental damage.

CSDDD implementing bill: second consultation opened

A first public consultation on a draft bill implementing the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive in the Netherlands (known as the Wivo) was held at the end of 2024. See our December 2024 article for more information. This draft has since been revised to incorporate the changes introduced by the Omnibus Directive. On 3 July 2026, the revised draft bill —Wivo 2 — was published for public consultation. Stakeholders can respond until 3 August 2026 and are invited to limit their comments to the changes made to the first draft.

Like its predecessor, Wivo 2 intends to avoid goldplating: the government has opted for an implementation that does not contain any national top-ups. Only those provisions are included that are needed for minimum CSDDD implementation, imposing as little additional burden as possible on companies and the supervisory authority. This approach reflects the general policy of the cabinet as expressed in the coalition agreement and the government programme.

We refer to our December 2025 article for more information on the changes introduced by the Omnibus Directive, which should, considering the above, correspond with the minimum implementation in the Netherlands. Member states have until July 2028 to transpose the directive into national law, with companies required to comply with its provisions from July 2029 onwards.

The European Commission has also started the process of formulating guidelines to the CSDDD and has distributed a questionnaire as a first consultation step.

Our input 

In 2024, we responded to the first consultation. Our response included remarks on the climate transition plan requirements as then drafted; a request for confirmation that the Open Government Act (Woo) does not apply to the ACM's supervisory information under the Wivo (we are pleased to see that this suggestion has been adopted in Wivo 2); and several technical remarks aimed at aligning the Wivo with the CSDDD to avoid goldplating (partially adopted in Wivo 2). 

We also included general observations. These covered the interplay between the Wivo and other national laws, including existing Dutch duties of care and open norms. In this light, we highlighted the tensions that may arise when a company must reconcile the Wivo's due diligence requirements, specifically the prioritisation of adverse impacts, with other objectives such as climate action, adherence to the OECD Guidelines, promoting the company's long-term success and respecting other rights and interests.

Our overarching message was, and still is, that companies would benefit from greater clarity and legal certainty about the framework that Dutch companies must operate within – notably in the areas of environmental protection, climate change, and human rights. We will not be submitting a response this time, but this general observation remains relevant in light of Wivo 2 − as evidenced by text added to the explanatory memorandum of Wivo 2 on climate change. 

The explanatory memorandum addresses climate change in the context of the abolition of a mandatory climate transition plan. It states that mitigating adverse impacts on human rights and the environment is intertwined with climate issues and therefore falls within the scope of the CSDDD's due diligence requirements − regardless of the transition plan requirement having been abolished. In our view, this statement may not be correct, given the European Commission's communications on this, and should be clarified. Any Dutch deviation on this issue risks uncertainty about what is expected of companies and lead to CSDDD top-ups that go beyond the stated no-goldplating objective. It also raises questions about consistent implementation across the EU. Further guidance on this point, preferably at the European level, would enhance legal certainty and ensure workable CSDDD rules in practice.

European Commission adopts revised CSRD sustainability reporting standards

On 3 July 2026, the European Commission adopted revised CSRD sustainability reporting standards (ESRS). See our May 2026 article for more information on the background of the revision, the prior public consultation and the expected timeline.

The revised ESRS are shorter and clearer, introduce new flexibility measures and reduce the number of mandatory datapoints by more than 60% and the total number of datapoints by more than 70% compared to the current ESRS. 

The revised standards have now been submitted to the European Parliament and the Council for a scrutiny period of two months (extendable by a further two months), after which they will enter into force. The Parliament and Council may only reject the standards in their entirety — they cannot amend them.

Key changes 

The Commission introduced several changes in response to the public consultation, including: 

• replacing the concept of “informed assessments” by a simpler reference to "decisions", in light of materiality and the materiality assessment; 
• introducing additional phasing-in for anticipated financial effects; 
• introducing greater flexibility in structuring the sustainability statement; and
• allowing an equity share approach, in addition to the financial control approach or the operational control approach, when defining the GHG reporting boundary. 

What does this mean for companies?

When the changes become final, companies in scope of the CSRD as of financial year 2027 will need to implement the revised ESRS (see our December 2025 article for more information on the scope and relevant changes as of financial year 2027). 'First wave' companies that have already voluntarily reported under the current ESRS may either apply the revised standards on a voluntary basis from financial year 2026 or transition to them from financial year 2027 onwards. Those opting for the 2027 transition may benefit from certain reliefs in respect of their financial year 2026 reports, as provided in article 2 of the Delegated Act.

Environmental violations: Dutch prosecutors step up criminal enforcement 

This section highlights two recent Dutch developments illustrating the Public Prosecution Service's focus on environmental enforcement. 

On the legislative front, a bill implementing EU Directive 2024/1203 on the protection of the environment through criminal law is currently pending before the Dutch Senate. As existing Dutch criminal law is already largely aligned with the directive, the bill introduces only a limited number of targeted amendments. 

Tata Steel: criminal prosecution for environmental violations

A criminal investigation into Tata Steel IJmuiden B.V. was launched by the Dutch Public Prosecution Service in February 2022, following a complaint filed on behalf of over 800 individuals. The investigation focused on whether Tata Steel and its managers had intentionally and unlawfully released harmful substances into the air, posing a risk to public health. 

That investigation has now resulted in a formal decision to prosecute Tata Steel on several criminal charges including intentionally and unlawful releasing harmful substances; breaching its duty of care (including failure to carry out adequate maintenance); operating without the required permits; and failing to report a number of incidents involving a product formed by heating coal. 

A first preliminary hearing before the Amsterdam District Court has been scheduled for 20 November 2026. In parallel, the Public Prosecution Service is still investigating if individual managers may be held criminally liable.

The proceedings could have broader commercial implications for Tata Steel. The company is currently seeking government subsidy to fund its green transition, and the existing framework agreement with the Dutch state contains a provision enabling the government to step back from that commitment where a criminal investigation raises material concerns. Whether the prosecution will jeopardise that funding remains to be seen; the government is expected to provide an update in September 2026.

SABIC: criminal investigation into unlawful PFAS discharge

On the same day as the decision to prosecute Tata Steel, the Public Prosecution Service announced that it had opened a criminal investigation into SABIC, a chemical company based in Bergen op Zoom. The investigation was triggered by a joint complaint filed by four civil society organisations in February 2026.

The investigation will examine whether SABIC − and potentially individual managers − unlawfully discharged PFBS (a forever chemical) into surface waters in breach of permit conditions or statutory requirements, thereby endangering public health or the environment.