It seems that the year 2025 is starting with its share of surprises. The latest? A shocking statement from Emmanuel Macron at the Choose France summit, where he proposed to repeal the European directive on due diligence. This announcement not only made headlines but also shook the world of NGOs, businesses, and even the government. Bang! In a context where multinational companies’ responsibility towards human rights and the environment is emphasized, this about-face from the French president is thought-provoking. So, what is behind this decision? What are the stakes for giants like EDF, Danone, or Renault? Let’s analyze this hot topic together.
The ins and outs of due diligence
Before diving into the heart of the matter, let’s take a quick overview of what this famous due diligence directive really is. Adopted in April 2024, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D) was implemented to require large companies to ensure the respect of human rights and environmental standards throughout their supply chain. This includes not only their direct operations but also those of their suppliers and subcontractors. In other words, it’s a bit like a morality investigation, but on a large scale! 🌍
The main stakes of the CS3D:
- 👥 Protection of human rights: Prevent forced labor, child labor, and ensure decent working conditions.
- 🌱 Environmental responsibility: Reduce ecological impact and promote sustainable management of natural resources.
- 💼 Transparency: Require multinationals to publish reports on their sustainability efforts.
What impact for companies like Renault and Airbus?
French industrial giants, such as Renault, Airbus, and L’Oréal, have already made significant investments to comply with these new requirements. The idea behind this is not only to anticipate potential sanctions but also to build a responsible brand image towards consumers who are increasingly concerned about ethical issues. 🚗✈️
A comparative table of current practices of some companies could clarify this situation:
| Company | Due diligence initiatives | Expected impact |
|---|---|---|
| Renault | Responsible sourcing policy | Strengthening brand image and customer loyalty |
| Airbus | Environmental audit of subcontractors | Reduction of carbon footprint |
| L’Oréal | Ingredient transparency program | Consumer trust |
These initiatives show how companies seek to stand out not only to comply with legal obligations but also to capitalize on the ethical awareness of consumers. The question now is what would be the impact of a potential repeal of the directive. Would it be a strategic withdrawal in the face of economic pressures or a real setback to corporate social responsibility?
The reaction of NGOs and field actors
Emmanuel Macron’s statement has undoubtedly caused a shockwave within the associative world. For many NGOs, such as Amnesty International and Oxfam, the desire to repeal the directive represents a serious blow to advancements in fundamental rights. How can they contest this? By highlighting tangible examples where the lack of regulations has had disastrous consequences, whether for the environment or society.
Their arguments in favor of the directive:
- 📉 Increased risk of abuse: Repealing the directive could lead to more violations of human rights.
- 🌍 Compromised environmental progress: Without a legal framework, multinationals risk neglecting environmental standards.
- 🔄 Legislative rollbacks: This would send a negative signal to other countries, which might also weaken their regulations.
To illustrate this mistrust, let’s take the case of TotalEnergies. The company recently found itself at the center of controversies regarding its environmental protection practices. Thanks to the directive, a framework is established to scrutinize these practices, and the repeal of this framework announces a potential regression on these issues. This deeply concerns not only associative actors but also consumers who are evaluating their purchasing choices.
The opinion of businesses: the dilemma between profitability and responsibility
In a world where financial results are often emphasized, businesses find themselves in a delicate dilemma. Some, such as BNP Paribas and Carrefour, believe that the constraints imposed by the directive could harm their competitiveness in the global market. Imagine the scene: you are a business leader, you must juggle growing demands for transparency while trying to align with shareholder expectations. A real tightrope act! 🤹♂️
Companies facing this dilemma:
- 💰 Immediate profitability versus long-term investments for sustainability
- ⚖️ Balance between financial performance and ethical obligations
- 🔒 Fear of devaluing brand image against less scrupulous competitors
These tensions are even more palpable at Danone, which has already implemented several social and environmental responsibility initiatives. Their commitments are appreciated by consumers, but are they sufficient in the face of public policies that could destabilize them? Repealing the due diligence directive would mean a step backward for them, with potential impacts on their image and operations worldwide.
A chaotic legislative journey: between delays and uncertainty
In May 2025, the CS3D directive was expected to be implemented after a one-year delay. The situation is complex, with discussions still ongoing between the European Commission, Parliament, and member states. This uncertain situation creates doubt in the minds of concerned actors, with persistent questions about the future of responsible business. Indeed, what will a company like Safran, already engaged in an eco-responsibility approach, do if the directive is ultimately abandoned? 😟
The consequences of successive delays:
- ⏳ Prolongation of regulatory uncertainties for businesses
- 📉 Trust issues between economic actors and public decision-makers
- 🌀 Risks of instability in commitment to good practices
This persistent ambiguity could demotivate companies from investing in sustainability measures, undermining the progress already made. Beyond mere regulations, it is a matter of company philosophy and societal commitment that is at stake here. A return to a level of legal uncertainty could exacerbate a prevailing cynicism regarding the commitment of economic and political actors. After all, committing with conviction is one thing, but staying to watch inertia set in is another.
FAQ: Frequently asked questions about due diligence and Macron’s statements
- What is the purpose of the CS3D directive? The directive aims to require large companies to respect human rights and limit their environmental impact throughout their supply chain.
- Why does Emmanuel Macron want to repeal this directive? According to him, it would facilitate the operation of businesses and the economic competitiveness of France.
- What are the risks of such a repeal? The eradication of the directive could lead to increased violations of human rights and a weakening of environmental standards.
- Which companies are affected by this directive? Multinationals in various sectors, including food, aerospace, luxury, and finance, such as Danone, Airbus, and BNP Paribas.
- What actions can NGOs take in this situation? They can launch awareness campaigns, pressure decision-makers, and promote alternatives to maintain a robust normative framework.
The future decisions regarding the due diligence directive will be decisive, not only for Europe but for the entire world. The path of corporate social responsibility must remain in focus to avoid sinking into indifference. The battle for ethical governance in business is just beginning. 🌟
