The European Union’s decision to dilute its corporate sustainability rules could hurt the bloc’s efforts to fight climate change and risks rewarding companies with a poor track record, environmental NGOs and clean energy advocates say.
In a deal clinched in the early hours of Tuesday, EU leaders, the European Commission and the Parliament agreed a series of amendments to the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which will require larger companies to identify and address any environmental or human rights violations in their supply chains.
The amendments, which still need formal approval by the Parliament and EU member states, mean the due diligence requirements will apply to far fewer companies than initially targeted and maximum penalties will be reduced from 5% to 3% of a company’s annual global turnover.
In another change, the EU also scrapped a requirement for companies to publish climate transition plans setting out how they would make their business model compatible with the Paris Agreement.
The EU Commission said the changes, which follow months of corporate lobbying, US pressure and interventions by France and Germany, will remove all requirements for many smaller companies and introduce greater flexibility for larger companies, which will help to ease administrative burdens on businesses and drive investment.
But climate campaigners and clean tech industry representatives said the watered down rules were a setback for European efforts to clean up supply chains and reduce emissions.
“By deleting the climate transition plan implementation, the EU is weakening the key legislative frameworks for businesses to prepare for climate risks and global challenges that can severely affect their operations and value chains,” said Julia Otten, who works on corporate due diligence at Frank Bold, a sustainability NGO and law firm.
“This is counter-productive for businesses, weakens accountability, and jeopardises the EU’s own plans and objectives on climate and the industrial transition,” she added.
“Extremely disappointing”
Industry leaders in clean energy technologies say that the changes undermine their sector’s climate efforts and risk putting companies that prioritise sustainability at a disadvantage.
Rachel Owens, CEO of the Solar Stewardship Initiative, a multistakeholder scheme that has set out standards for what transparent and sustainable solar value chains should look like, told Climate Home News the move was “extremely disappointing”.
Requiring companies to set out their climate transition plans would have demonstrated that the production of solar panels and other renewable energy technologies and the energy they generate have much lower emissions than their fossil fuel alternatives, she said.
For Maurice Loosschilder, global head of sustainability at Signify – a multinational company that manufactures LED lighting systems that help reduce energy consumption – the removal of the climate transition plans from the law will make it more difficult to align businesses and their supply chains with the EU’s climate goals and could reduce incentives for innovation.
Because of its large size, Signify still falls under the law’s requirement. But Loosschilder said he was concerned that the company could lose its competitive edge when faced with small companies for which the same sustainability rules do not apply.
Intense lobbying
The agreement reached on Tuesday followed intense lobbying by industry and governments.
In a letter addressed to EU leaders, the US and Qatar warned that investment and energy supplies to the EU would be harmed if the CSDDD came into effect in its original form.
Documents obtained by the Amsterdam-based Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (Somo) show how 10 major companies lobbied to dilute the regulation. This included oil and gas majors ExxonMobil, Chevron and TotalEnergies as well as metals and minerals producer Nyrstar, a subsidiary of commodity trading giant Trafigura Group.
Total Energies defended its advocacy in Brussels and in European capitals as being “in full compliance with applicable laws and regulations”. The other companies did not respond to Somo’s requests for comment.
NGO Global Witness accused EU leaders of giving in to lobbying by the fossil fuel industry.
“Major oil and gas giants will now be able to dodge their responsibility to act on [the] climate, largely thanks to intense US political and corporate pressure,” Beate Beller, a senior campaigner at Global Witness, told Climate Home News.
The EU’s about-face also weakens efforts to clean up the supply chains of technologies needed for the energy transition such as electric vehicles, batteries and solar panels.
“Clean tech cannot be ‘clean’ if the raw materials behind it are mined under weakened standards. This is what made the spirit of the CSDDD so promising: it paired climate transition plans to cut fossil-fuel dependence with robust human-rights and environmental due diligence across clean-tech supply chains,” she added.
Lower bar on supply chain oversight
The rules will now only apply to companies established in the EU with at least 5,000 employees and a net global turnover of 1.5 billion euros. It had originally applied to companies with at least 1,000 employees and turnover of 450 million euros. Member states have until July 2028 to transpose the requirements into national law.
When assessing their supply chains, companies will need to follow a risk-based approach and focus on areas that carry the biggest potential for harm. For example, an EV maker might focus on the production of the battery, which requires a range of different minerals whose extraction and processing carry high risks.
However, companies are no longer required to carry out comprehensive mapping of their direct and indirect suppliers. Instead, they will need to conduct “a general scoping exercise” based on “reasonably available information”.
Johannes Blankenbach, a senior researcher at the Business and Human Rights Centre, told Climate Home News that it is important that companies identify risks beyond their direct suppliers.
That’s because the most severe risks typically lie further up the supply chain, for example, where raw materials are sourced or extracted from the ground, he said.
In addition, harmonised rules across the EU to allow victims of harms to take companies to court have been removed, which will make it more difficult for communities to find legal remedies, Blankenbach added.
While the EU Commission said the less onerous requirements should help drive investment, Sonia Dunlop, CEO of the Global Solar Council, a trade body for the solar industry, said investors in solar farms wanted guarantees about the origin of solar panels and battery storage equipment.
“They want to know where it was made, and they want to know that it was properly made according to the highest environmental, social and governance standards,” she said, citing industry initiatives to boost supply chain transparency and standards such as the Solar Stewardship Initiative.
She said the initiative had been spurred by both the EU’s plan to tighten due diligence laws as well as industry concerns over the use of forced labour in the production of polysilicon used in solar panels in China’s Xinjiang region.
The post EU weakening of corporate sustainability rules ‘jeopardises’ climate action, critics say appeared first on Climate Home News.
EU weakening of corporate sustainability rules ‘jeopardises’ climate action, critics say
Climate Change
One Year After Green Bank’s Demise, Court Mulls Future of Grant-Based Climate Policy
The Trump administration faced skepticism in court over its claim of an unfettered right to break contracts. But it’s not clear that can save efforts to sow a clean energy future with federal seed money.
One year ago today, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced he was terminating the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, one of the biggest climate initiatives of the Biden administration, after weeks of alleging the $20 billion in grants had been awarded in a “criminal” scheme.
One Year After Green Bank’s Demise, Court Mulls Future of Grant-Based Climate Policy
Climate Change
Trump Explores Deep Sea Mining in American Samoa
Even as opposition grows and the U.S. territory maintains a moratorium on seabed mining, NOAA began a $20 million survey of surrounding federal waters to help locate deep sea mineral deposits.
The Trump administration is moving to open federal waters surrounding American Samoa to deep-sea mining despite widespread opposition from leaders and environmental advocates from the U.S. territory.
Climate Change
Africa needs more than export bans to cash in on critical minerals, experts say
Curbs on raw minerals exports by more than a dozen African countries are unlikely to kickstart home-grown processing industries unless they are accompanied by major investments in energy infrastructure, private sector partnerships and regional cooperation, mining analysts say.
Last month, Zimbabwe became the latest African country to announce new restrictions, banning the export of all raw minerals and lithium concentrates. So far, at least 13 African countries have enacted export curbs since 2023 as they seek to add value to their exports and create local jobs by processing and refining minerals domestically.
Zimbabwe, Africa’s top producer of lithium, which is used to make batteries for electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable energy storage, wants its resources of the silvery-white metal to be processed into higher-grade compounds such as lithium sulphate, an intermediate product that can be refined into a battery-grade material, rather than exported as raw concentrate for refining elsewhere.
Government officials say adding value to mineral resources locally is a way to boost economic growth and fund social development. “Government remains committed to ensuring transparency, in-country value addition and beneficiation, compliance, and accountability in the exportation of Zimbabwe’s mineral resources,” said Polite Kambamura, the country’s minister of mines and mining development.
Done correctly, curbs on raw material shipments may encourage development, said Namibia-based public policy researcher Suzie Shefeni.
“A ban like this can serve development interests if it is [firstly], systematically and gradually implemented and backed by appropriate legal mechanisms and [secondly] done in collaboration with the private sector,” Shefeni said.
Restrictions alone won’t ensure added value
But others say that laying the groundwork for viable processing industries will take time and money.
The continent has “not considered everything that is needed for value addition and beneficiation to happen”, said Obert Bore, critical minerals expert and programme manager at the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Organisation, a Harare-based NGO.
“From a private sector perspective, when you speak to mining companies they will tell you these export bans do not work because we don’t have enough water, we don’t have enough energy,” Bore told Climate Home News.
Silas Olan’g, Africa energy transition advisor at the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI), said that while the intention behind export curbs is understandable, “experience shows that bans alone rarely deliver the desired outcomes”.
For export bans to work, he said governments must first put the right conditions in place, including reliable energy, supporting infrastructure, investment incentives and strong governance. Without these fundamentals, “such restrictions can inadvertently undermine the very value addition they seek to achieve”, he said.
Given these constraints, Olan’g argued that “export bans are not the right tool at this stage if the fundamentals are not in place” and could prove “counterproductive”. Instead, governments should use contracts with buyers to secure commitments on infrastructure, skills and technology transfer, building the foundations for value addition before imposing restrictions.
“Without skills, infrastructure, and reliable energy, local value addition cannot take off simply because exports are restricted” Olan’g said.
High price of added value
Africa is a major supplier of minerals needed for the global energy transition. The continent holds about 30% of the world’s critical mineral reserves, including lithium, cobalt and copper. The Democratic Republic of Congo produces roughly 70% of global cobalt, a key ingredient in lithium-ion batteries, while countries such as Guinea dominate bauxite production and Mozambique and Tanzania hold significant graphite deposits.
Zimbabwe exported more than 1.1 million metric tons of lithium-bearing spodumene concentrate in 2025. However with the recent move to ban exports, Bore said lithium processing requires huge quantities of energy and water, putting further strain on scarce supplies in Zimbabwe, which is prone to drought and has a hefty power deficit that causes prolonged outages.
The southern African nation, which initially banned exports of unprocessed lithium ore in 2022, before extending that to lithium concentrates last month, aims to provide 20% of global supplies.
Processing just one metric ton of lithium can require more than 50,000 litres of water, Bore said, meaning ramped-up activity by producers could significantly impact local communities and other economic sectors.
“In Zimbabwe at least, we are seeing significant impact on communities that will no longer have water, we are running out of water for our agriculture, for livestock because the companies are trying to comply with the government ban and by trying to comply they are drawing huge amounts of water just to process one ton of lithium which is not a lot,” he said.
South African rare earths project aims to rival Chinese with low-cost model
Energy is another major constraint for African nations intent on adding value to their critical minerals exports.
In Zimbabwe, Bore said half of the country’s electricity is already used by the mining sector.
However, officials say the country’s lithium boom is already delivering economic gains with export earnings from lithium surging to over $200 million in September of 2023, up from $70 million the year before. The sector has also attracted more than $1 billion in foreign investment, largely from Chinese firms developing mines and battery-material processing plants in the country.
One way of addressing the power deficit would be for governments to make less costly and faster renewable energy development an integral part of the plans for the mining sector, said Namibia-based Shefeni.
“(They) should prioritise a trajectory of green beneficiation by promoting the use of renewables including solar PV and wind, in their value addition systems,” she said.
Skirting the rules
If the right conditions are not in place for mining companies to comply with processing requirements, export bans run the risk of being bypassed, according to Bore.
Bans on exporting raw lithium have been introduced gradually since 2023, but Bore’s research suggests compliance remains weak.
“There are leakages. People are not complying because we don’t have the capacity, we don’t have the water, we don’t have the energy,” he said.


He added that complicated licensing processes are also creating opportunities for corruption.
“If the system is not conducive, it creates a breeding ground for corruption because people are trying to get licences and permits, and sometimes those licences end up in the wrong hands,” he said.
If African countries are to foster the development of mineral-processing industries, they will need to implement appropriate regulations, Shefeni said.
China maximises battery recycling to shore up critical mineral supplies
The development of a comprehensive mining land registry could help countries minimise the scope for illegality and smuggling. Integrating the registry with geospatial mapping and production reporting would allow authorities to compare reported output with export declarations.
“This requires investment into a strong enforcement system that can hold offenders accountable by the law,” she said.
Unified Africa vs bilateral deals
Speaking during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Wamkele Mene, secretary-general of the African Continental Free Trade Area Secretariat, said African nations risk missing out on the opportunities offered by the global race for critical minerals if they do not coordinate their approach.
Echoing Mene’s call, Sierra Leone’s President Julius Maada Bio lamented: “We do not have collective bargaining power as a continent.”


Export bans by individual countries risk weakening their bargaining power by negotiating separately with international partners, rather than forming a common stance with other African nations in negotiating with major partners such as China, Bore said.
“We don’t have leverage doing it individually,” he said. He argued that African countries should stop speaking individually and instead present a united front. By highlighting the continent’s vast resources – copper in Zambia, cobalt in the DRC, lithium in Zimbabwe and Nigeria, bauxite in Guinea and iron in Mali – they could push for industries to be built locally and add value to these materials.
In that scenario, he said, China could respond and say “OK fine, you have the resources, you have the market. We can give you the technology, we will train your people and we can develop your skills.”
Shefeni also called for a greater focus on regional value chains, with “individual countries assessing how they are well positioned to contribute”.
NRGI’s Olan’g added that fragmented negotiations only “allow external partners to play countries against each other, leading to weaker commitments on infrastructure, skills, and technology transfer”.
“A unified Africa could pool demand, create economies of scale for smelters and refineries, and set common rules that strengthen governance and investor confidence,” he added.
The post Africa needs more than export bans to cash in on critical minerals, experts say appeared first on Climate Home News.
Africa needs more than export bans to cash in on critical minerals, experts say
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits

