25
February
2026
Opinion on Draft Simplified European Sustainability Reporting Standards
This FRA Opinion on the draft simplified European Sustainability Reporting Standards informs the European Commission ahead of the standards’ adoption. This Opinion applies a risk-based human rights approach to assess whether the proposed simplifications preserve essential safeguards for people adversely affected by corporate activities. The Opinion provides practical, proportionate suggestions to strengthen the simplified framework and ensure that efficiency gains do not come at the expense of fundamental rights.
Search inside this publication
- Environmental standards cover DRs related to climate change (ESRS E1), pollution (ESRS E2), water (ESRS E3), biodiversity and ecosystems (ESRS E4), and resource use and circular economy (ESRS E5). The amendments proposed by EFRAG significantly reduce mandatory data points. They also enhance flexibility in disclosure and extend the use of phase-ins and relief mechanisms. Amendments to environmental disclosure requirements may indirectly impact fundamental rights protection by influencing the transparency and information needed to identify, prevent, and address adverse impacts on people. This chapter analyses risks and potential impacts on fundamental rights of the proposed ES amendments.
Human rights impact and legal analysis
- Environmental impacts are closely intertwined with the enjoyment of several fundamental rights recognised under EU and international law, including the rights to health; safe and healthy working conditions; clean water; an adequate standard of living; and respect for private and family life [98] See, inter alia, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 7, 31 and 35; European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Articles 11 and 12.
. Further, both the UNGPs [99] United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘“‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’”’ fFramework, United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2011, Principles 17 and 18.
and the OECD Guidelines [100] OECD, OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises on responsible business conduct, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2023, pp. 33–38.
require enterprises to identify and assess adverse impacts arising from environmental harm. The proposed amendments to environmental DRs may impact fundamental rights protection by limiting the transparency and information needed to identify, prevent and address adverse impacts on people.
Climate transition plans
- The simplification of climate transition plan disclosures under ESRS E1 is relevant from a fundamental rights perspective. The amended standard reduces prescriptive requirements on how transition plans are to be structured. The organisation Shift stated that these ‘loosened requirements for climate transition plans’ are ‘problematic in their own right’ [101] Shift, ‘Shift statement on the political agreement on the Omnibus simplification package on EU sustainability due diligence and reporting rules’, Shift website, 10 December 2025.
, while civil-society organisations urged that they be retained during outreach events, stating that they are the most important disclosure within E1 [102] EFRAG, Summary of Outreach Events: Comments and suggestions , 2025, p. 28.
. - Climate transition measures significantly affect workers and communities through employment shifts, working conditions, skills needs and regional socioeconomic stability. Less transparency on planning and managing these social dimensions of the climate transition may hinder stakeholders’ ability to assess transition-related risks to workers and communities, including risks to the right to fair and just working conditions under Article 31 of the Charter and to broader socioeconomic rights linked to an adequate standard of living as recognised in international human rights law. From a business and human rights perspective, reduced disclosure also impedes the effective implementation and assessment of human rights due diligence in line with the UNGPs and the OECD Guidelines. Yet, these choices made regarding transition plans reflect a compromise between simplification and transparency of disclosures. Positively, despite some stakeholders calling for its deletion, EFRAG decided to preserve the requirement to disclose when no transition plan exists, in order to maintain transparency [103] EFRAG, Basis for Conclusions: Draft amended ESRS – December 2025, Brussels, 2025, p. 67.
. - The prior Article 22 dual obligation to adopt and implement climate transition plans marked a significant step beyond the disclosure-focused logic of the CSRD, by converting reporting commitments into operational duties. While the CSRD creates a transparency framework – requiring disclosures on sustainability information, climate strategies and due diligence processes – the CSDDD operationalises these by imposing concrete due diligence obligations. The deletion of the climate transition plan requirement therefore weakens the complementarity between the two instruments, reducing the CSDDD’s role in ensuring that disclosed climate commitments are underpinned by binding implementation measures.
- Overall, the combined effect of the simplification of ESRS E1 disclosures and the removal of the climate transition plan obligation under the CSDDD represents a significant recalibration of the EU sustainability framework. Simplification eases administrative burdens, but risks eroding transparency and accountability for how undertakings plan and manage the social and environmental consequences of the climate transition. Notably, the absence of a binding obligation to adopt and implement climate transition plans reduces the operational strength of the EU’s corporate climate governance, potentially compromising policy coherence, legal certainty and alignment of corporate conduct with long-term climate objectives.
Phase-ins and reliefs as regards reporting on pollution
- The extensive phase-ins and reliefs introduced in ESRS E2 on Pollution – particularly E2-5 (metrics related to substances of concern (SoCs) and substances of very high concern (SVHCs)) – are particularly relevant for workers’ health.
- The amendments to ESRS E2-5 aimed to clarify requirements and reduce complexity, while preserving transparency on substances posing risks to human health and the environment. A key change narrows the reporting scope on SoCs: the revised standard now clearly distinguishes undertakings placing chemicals on the market from those primarily using them. Manufacturers, formulators and importers must report on SoCs, with the scope clarified through NACE (general industrial classification of economic activities within the European Union) codes, while downstream users focus solely on SVHCs – which are easier to identify and already well defined under EU legislation. This reflects differences in access to information and responsibilities along the chemicals value chain [104] EFRAG, Basis for Conclusions: Draft amended ESRS – December 2025, Brussels, 2025, p. 80.
. - EFRAG retained SoC DRs, given their relevance for health, environmental protection and risk assessment, amid strong legislative backing. To ease implementation challenges, it introduced a phase-in for SoCs reporting through the simplified ESRS 1, allowing undertakings additional time to adapt. In parallel, the definition of SoC was narrowed by removing substances that are merely subject to ongoing regulatory processes. To further reduce burden and complexity, information is reported by hazard class rather than by individual substance, and general ESRS principles and reliefs continue to apply. Due to time constraints, EFRAG did not develop additional methodological guidance specifically for substances and pollutants outside the EU [105] EFRAG, Basis for Conclusions: Draft amended ESRS – December 2025, Brussels, 2025, p. 80.
. - Like many of the 2025 ESRS changes, these balance disclosure transparency against reporting simplification. Nonetheless, because pollution-related disclosures are intrinsically linked to the prevention of occupational and public health risks, the reduced scope and delayed application of SoCs reporting may raise concerns. In particular, they risk limiting undertakings’ ability to identify, assess and disclose potential adverse impacts on workers and local communities [106] Shift, ‘Shift statement on the political agreement on the Omnibus simplification package on EU sustainability due diligence and reporting rules’, Shift website, 10 December 2025.
. - Exposure to hazardous substances is a well-established risk factor for occupational disease and environmental health harm. Delayed or reduced disclosures may therefore affect the effective protection of the right to fair and just working conditions under Article 31 of the Charter, which encompasses the protection of workers’ health. At the level of the ECHR, environmental pollution and exposure to toxic substances have been recognised by the ECtHR as potentially engaging Article 8 of the ECHR (right to respect for private and family life), particularly where such exposure adversely affects individuals’ health or living conditions [107] See, inter alia, ECtHR, 6 May 2025, Case of L.F. and others v. Italy, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:0506JUD005285418. See also Radina, A., ‘Is Article 8 enough? L.F. and others v. Italy and the sidelining of Article 2 in environmental cases’, Strasbourg Observers website, 30 July 2025.
. From a due diligence perspective, limitations in disclosure also weaken the capacity of undertakings and public authorities to identify and address risks to workers and communities in line with the UNGPs and the OECD guidelines. - Moreover, the differentiated treatment of actors in relation to the disclosure of SoCs and SVHCs has important value chain implications [108] See also EFRAG, Outreach Summary: Final results, 2025, p. 17, where it is mentioned that according to civil-society organisations the value chain dimension seems weakened in E2 standards.
. While restricting downstream users’ disclosures to SVHCs addresses practical constraints, it may also reduce visibility of upstream pollution risks linked to SoCs, particularly where hazardous substances are manufactured or processed in segments of the value chain with limited data availability or weaker regulatory oversight. This is especially relevant for vulnerable workers and communities in upstream and non-EU contexts, where exposure risks may be significant but are less likely to be captured through downstream reporting. Moreover, the absence of dedicated methodological guidance for substances and pollutants outside the EU reinforces the EU-centric focus of ESRS E2-5 disclosures. As a result, pollution-related impacts occurring in global supply chains may remain insufficiently visible. These limitations are relevant from a due diligence perspective, as they may constrain undertakings’ ability to identify and assess all actual or potential adverse impacts across their value chains, as required under the UNGPs, notably Principle 17. - Overall, while the simplified ESRS E2-5 balances feasibility and transparency, its phase-ins and reliefs merit careful monitoring to ensure that simplification does not compromise the timely identification and management of pollution-related risks to workers’ and public health.
- The amended Environmental Standards reflect a clear policy choice prioritising simplification, flexibility and burden reduction. While these amendments do not directly interfere with fundamental rights obligations, they may indirectly affect the protection of such rights by limiting the availability, granularity or timeliness of information on environmental impacts closely linked to workers’ health, community well-being and social outcomes.
- In particular, the simplification of climate transition plandisclosures under ESRS E1, combined with the removal of the corresponding obligation under the CSDDD, weakens the link between transparency and operational accountability, potentially impacting workers, communities and other rightsholders affected by the climate transition. Likewise, the extensive use of phase-ins and reliefs across the environmental standards – notably on pollution and hazardous substances – reflects legitimate feasibility concerns but risks delaying the identification and management of risks to workers’ health and to the living conditions of affected communities. In this context, effective monitoring of the implementation of phase-ins and reliefs is essential [109] More generally on the importance of meaningful implementation, see Danish Institute for Human Rights, ‘The revised European sustainability reporting standards are here, now it’s time to shift attention back ensuring to their meaningful implementation’, Danish Institute for Human Rights website, 3 December 2025: ‘due to the many new principles and flexibilities introduced, implementation guidance and other efforts to support meaningful implementation need to be given utmost priority including in the mandate given for the next stage of EFRAG’s sustainability reporting work.’
. The practical application of ESRS E2-5 should be tracked, including through field testing, to ensure that reliefs on SoCs do not undermine existing voluntary reporting practices developed under the 2023 ESRS and remain aligned with the OECD guidelines, particularly regarding the protection of workers’ health. - ESRS Considering the above, the revised ESRS represent the outer limit of acceptable simplification. The risks identified here arise cumulatively from the combined effect of multiple simplification levers — including materiality filtering, estimation practices, and value-chain limitations — which, taken together, amplify systemic vulnerabilities. Further dilution of environmentally relevant disclosures would be difficult to justify and could undermine the standards’ coherence with EU sustainability objectives and the protection of fundamental rights.
Related