In August 2026, Rights CoLab submitted a response to the European Commission’s open public consultation on guidelines for implementing the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). The comment letter and survey responses appears below.
Rights CoLab welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation on the implementation guidelines for the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).
Founded in 2018, Rights CoLab develops innovative solutions to systemic challenges that strengthen civil society and harness markets to advance human rights. Since 2023, Rights CoLab has led a collaborative effort to develop Investor HREDD Precision Tools. Based upon extensive research and consultations, these tools help investors and other stakeholders assess the quality of portfolio companies’ human rights and environmental due diligence, a critical indicator of risk exposure. We believe that the tools can also be helpful in informing the implementation guidelines. Three tools, each reflecting a specific pain point in HREDD, are particularly relevant to this consultation:
- Red Flags in Sustainability Initiatives identifies 14 warning signs that certification or membership in a multi-stakeholder initiative may not reliably indicate corporate performance. Developed with investor input, it also highlights the features of credible initiatives. It informs the Commission’s Article 20 guidelines on industry and multi-stakeholder initiatives and third-party verification.
- The Stakeholder Engagement Guide (beta) draws on existing standards to provide tailored guidance across four stages of engagement with affected stakeholders, organized around seven effectiveness criteria. It informs the guidelines on meaningful stakeholder engagement and information for stakeholders and their representatives.
- The Responsible Contracting Guide explains how responsible contracting can strengthen due diligence and help prevent adverse human rights and environmental impacts. It also supports investor engagement with portfolio companies to ensure that supply contracts reinforce, rather than undermine, due diligence. It informs the guidelines on purchasing practices and model contract clauses.
In addition, Rights CoLab has worked with Namati and Just Ground to produce a roadmap for a pooled fund for technical and legal support for rights holders, which represents a watershed opportunity to vastly improve company-community relations, HREDD, project sustainability, and human rights protection.
Our responses to a selection of the questions in the consultation draws on these resources. Below we highlight our key recommendations across our answers.
Key recommendations
1. Center rights holders in HREDD implementation
The guidelines should establish meaningful rights-holder involvement as a core element of impact identification and due diligence. Rights holders are best placed to explain how business activities affect them, yet World Benchmarking Alliance data covering 760 companies shows that impacts on Indigenous Peoples, migrant workers, human rights defenders, and other groups facing heightened risks are among those identified least often.
Effectiveness Criteria 2 (Inclusiveness) and 3 (A Focus on Those Most at Risk) of Rights CoLab’s Stakeholder Engagement Guide provide practical guidance for identifying legitimate representatives and prioritizing those most likely to be harmed. The “What to Look For” sections of Red Flags in Sustainability Initiatives also highlight innovative features of initiatives that provide stronger evidence of credible practice.
2. Make stakeholder engagement work for both rights holders and companies
The implementation guidelines should specify safeguards for meaningful engagement, including trusted local intermediaries, accessible and trauma-informed methods, preserving anonymity, data protection, and protection from retaliation. They should also require evidence that rights-holder input influenced company action. WBA’s 2026 Social Benchmark shows the gap as only 9% of companies engage stakeholders in risk identification, 12% in risk assessment, and 4% in decisions about action. These findings are echoed by the OECD Responsible Business Outlook 2026 survey finding that “Globally, 8% of large listed companies report engaging stakeholders on human rights issues.” Rights CoLab’s Stakeholder Engagement Guide helps to close this gap by illustrating how companies can enable stakeholder-informed action plans, foster trust and accountability, and leverage stakeholder knowledge through transparent monitoring and continuous improvement.
Meaningful engagement also depends on rights holders having independent legal and technical support. Even the best efforts by companies will fail if rights holders lack the skills and resources to engage meaningfully and on equal footing, depriving companies of the information needed to identify and address harm. The implementation guidelines should therefore encourage companies to support pooled funds, as proposed in Rights CoLab’s report with Namati and Just Ground. By combining company and public or private funding, these funds can finance independent support delivered by grassroots organizations, provide communities with credible advice before key decisions, support fairer agreements, and reduce operational risk throughout the project lifecycle.
3. Establish concrete safeguards for credible third-party verification
The guidelines should define the safeguards that make third-party verification independent, competent, and accountable. Independence requires separating audited companies from selecting and having oversight of verifiers and the review of complaints. Drawing on lessons from Flag 6 of Red Flags in Sustainability Initiatives, relevant safeguards include appointment by an independent body, auditor rotation, disclosure of verifier-company relationships, and independent review of conflicts and complaints.
Competence should be demonstrated through verifiable qualifications. Flag 7 identifies knowledge of rights-based approaches, salient sector risks, local contexts, and rights-holders’ languages, and cites the Certified Social Compliance Auditor designation as a recognized credential. Electronics Watch provides a practical example, requiring locally rooted monitoring partners with demonstrated expertise in labor rights, occupational health and safety, and monitoring methodologies.
Conclusion
Our submission points to specific criteria for CSDDD implementation that centers rights holders in HREDD action plan development and implementation, supports meaningful stakeholder engagement, defines credible third-party verification, and clarifies how purchasing practices and contracts can support HREDD. Together these measures can help companies conduct effective risk-based due diligence – identifying harms that they might otherwise overlook, reducing legal, operational, and reputational risk, supporting more sustainable investments and durable community relationships, and producing measurable improvements for people and communities..
Thank you for considering our submission.
Sincerely,
Silvana Zapata-Ramirez and Joanne Bauer, on behalf of Rights CoLab
Consultation Question and Rights CoLab’s Responses
Q2 Do you think that the guidelines should seek to offer examples on adverse human rights (including labour rights) or environmental impact, and which are the most relevant types of impacts for which you see this need? Please explain.
Yes. The guidelines should include examples of impacts on Indigenous Peoples’ right to FPIC, migrant workers, human rights defenders – high risk groups that are often overlooked by companies. With the rise of AI and surveillance technologies, examples of impacts on privacy rights are also necessary. Identifying these impacts requires meaningful engagement with rights holders, who need the resources and opportunities to shape the design, implementation, and M&E of the engagement process.
Q40 What best practices could ensure the independence of third-party verifiers from the companies that they assess, from the companies on whose behalf they act and from external influence?
Guidelines should provide that audited companies neither select nor directly pay their verifiers. Flag 6 of Red Flags in Sustainability Initiatives identifies this arrangement as a conflict of interest because verifiers have a financial incentive to produce favorable findings. Independence requires a clear firewall – for example, an independent body that audits and investigates complaints, and/or provides oversight to ensure schemes follow their own rules.
Q41 In your view, what level of experience and competence in human rights (including labour rights) or environmental matters, according to the nature of the adverse impact, would be necessary for third-party verifiers to support companies in implementing the Directive’s requirements?
Flag 7 of Red Flags defines competence as knowledge of rights-based approaches, sector risks, local contexts and languages. It cites the APSCA’s CSCA credential, which tests auditors’ understanding of international human rights treaties, laws, and standards, and social-compliance audit methodologies. Electronics Watch requires “monitoring partners” to be rooted in worker communities and possess expertise in labor rights, workplace safety, and monitoring methodologies.
Q42 In your experience, what are the most effective standards ensuring that the third-party verifiers are accountable for the quality, effectiveness, reliability and integrity of the verification?
Rights holders should have meaningful decision-making power within the standard. At a minimum they need to be accountable to rights holders. The Fair Food Program and Milk with Dignity were designed by the workers that the schemes aim to protect, and use a worker-driven monitoring model, as does Electronics Watch. The governance model of IRMA gives mining-affected communities equal representation and voting power alongside mining companies, purchasers, investors/finance, organized labor, and NGOs.
Q44 Which methods have proven most cost-effective in identifying and involving marginalized groups (for example certain groups of indigenous people) or ‘hidden’ stakeholders, such as those working in the informal sector or victims of human trafficking?
The most effective approach is to work through trusted, independent survivor-led and anti-trafficking organizations with established relationships in affected communities. Safe, trauma-informed, confidential engagement—using trained local staff, anonymous reporting channels, appropriate language access, and safeguards against retaliation—enables survivors and workers in informal sectors to participate without increasing risk. Companies should fund this independent support without controlling it.
Q45 What are the most robust and cost-effective mechanisms for guaranteeing confidentiality and protecting participants from retaliation?
We recommend multiple safe, independent, and accessible channels through trusted local organizations, worker representatives, and rights-holders’ chosen advisers. Channels should allow anonymity, protect data, use local languages, and be trauma-informed. Companies should assess and monitor retaliation risks, prohibit retaliation, and provide remedy. In conflict zones, safeguards should include secure off-site venues, limited records, and off-site data storage.
Q46 What are the most critical issues for stakeholders covered by the Directive in terms of engagement with companies at different stages of the due diligence process? What are best practices leading to an effective (including cost-effective) due diligence process?
A key feature of meaningful stakeholder engagement is to Ensure Follow Through, where engagement continues beyond an initial meeting or consultation and stakeholder input is continually sought. Best practice requires documenting how rights holders’ views shaped the action plan, assigning responsibility for and tracking commitments, and involving rights holders in evaluating effectiveness. Companies should faithfully communicate these actions to rights holders and report publicly on progress.
Q49 How can companies engage with stakeholders in a way that specifically addresses and removes barriers for vulnerable stakeholders or groups (such as, depending on the context, workers representatives, indigenous peoples, women, or migrant workers)? In your view, what specific support do vulnerable stakeholders need?
Companies can address power imbalances by contributing to pooled funds for independent legal and technical support for rights holders. Women facing violence, mobility restrictions, caregiving demands, or silencing in mixed-gender settings need separate, safely scheduled meetings. Outreach involving Indigenous Peoples in voluntary isolation or initial contact must prevent contact, encroachment, and threats to their health, territory, culture, or self-determination.
Photo by Danist Soh on Unsplash
