SUPPLIER DIVERSITY
While independent third-party verification can support the implementation of due diligence requirements, it does not absolve companies of liability.
• Supporting compliance, not transferring responsibility Companies opting to use third-party verification must ensure that their direct and indirect business partners comply with contractual assurances related to due diligence. Despite this, Article 29, paragraph 4 of the directive explicitly states that companies remain liable for adverse impacts even if a third-party verification is employed.
While the CSDDD does not explicitly address provider biases, it emphasises companies retaining ultimate responsibility for due diligence and suggests that they should critically evaluate third-party verifications rather than blindly relying on them. The directive’ s approach aims to prevent companies from hiding behind certifications or verifications without conducting their own thorough due diligence.
The CSDDD highlights the EU’ s commitment to sustainable development and corporate responsibility. By enforcing stricter human rights and environmental standards across value chains, the directive aims to foster a greener, fairer economy. Procurement teams play a pivotal role in achieving these objectives, with their actions directly influencing compliance and creating sustainable supply chains.
While the CSDDD does shift significant responsibility to contracting companies, it doesn’ t create sole liability for supplier non-compliance. Instead, it establishes a framework for shared responsibility and risk-based due diligence throughout the value chain.
Risks of relying solely on third-party certifications Depending exclusively on third-party certifications for compliance can introduce several potential risks that organisations must be mindful of:
132 April 2025