‘The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) means that human rights are no longer something companies consider on a voluntary basis, but are instead becoming part of their legal responsibilities and obligations under EU law,’ emphasised the Human Rights Ombudswoman, Dr Simona Drenik Bavdek, today (6 May 2026) at the 4th Scientific Conference on Corporate Responsibility for Due Diligence on Environmental and Human Rights Impacts in EU and Slovenian Law.

The conference was organised by Science and Research Centre Koper and Evro-sredozemska univerza Piran (EMUNI), a Euro-Mediterranean university based in Piran. During the roundtable discussion on the implementation of the CSDDD into Slovenian law, the Ombudswoman emphasised that the directive brings important added value by introducing legally binding obligations for companies, for the first time, to identify, prevent and remedy adverse impacts on human rights and the environment. ‘This represents a shift from voluntary commitments to legal responsibility, and from a reactive to a preventive approach. In other words, companies must identify and prevent risks before violations occur,’ she said.

At the same time, she pointed to several significant limitations arising from the final compromise reached at EU level, particularly the narrowed scope of obligated entities, the weakened civil liability framework and the restrictions on stakeholder involvement under the so-called Omnibus I package, resulting from the European Commission’s simplification proposal. However, she stressed that this does not prevent the state from adopting more ambitious measures. ‘Slovenia has an important opportunity here, as a country constitutionally and internationally committed to the protection of human rights, and also one of the few countries with an explicit constitutional right to a healthy environment, to pursue an ambitious implementation and go beyond the minimum requirements of the directive,’ the Ombudswoman emphasised.

Dr Drenik Bavdek also stressed the importance of establishing an effective and independent supervisory authority. ‘The supervisory authority must not be a traditional inspection body. It will need to deal with complex systems such as supply chains, risk assessments, business processes and company policies, and be capable of answering the key question of whether companies are genuinely reducing adverse impacts on human rights and the environment. Without professional, independent and effective supervision capable of assessing whether a company has exercised sufficient due diligence in light of the risks, we cannot speak of genuine protection of human rights and the environment. It would also be regrettable if Slovenia were to accept a heavily narrowed definition of stakeholders entitled to participate in proceedings. We would therefore like Slovenia to go further than the proposed minimum in this respect and once again include non-governmental organisations, the Ombudsman and trade unions – in other words, those actors who possess extensive knowledge and experience in the field of human rights and environmental protection. Given its available human resources capacities, Slovenia cannot afford narrow and exclusionary approaches,’ the Ombudswoman warned.

She went on to present several other important factors, including ensuring genuine access to remedies for victims. ‘Human rights and environmental standards are not effective if affected individuals have no means of obtaining redress. Slovenian law must enable effective remedies in practice.’ She also stressed the role of the state in supporting companies: ‘I believe it is also necessary to listen to companies, which have repeatedly pointed out that they often struggle to navigate the many new legislative requirements. The state must act not only as a regulator, but also as a supportive partner to companies. This includes providing clear and practical guidelines for implementing due diligence, organising education and training, and developing support materials and tools. There is a perception that the state is not doing enough to support companies.’ The Ombudswoman sees an important opportunity in a more active role of the Slovenian National Contact Point of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

The Human Rights Ombudswoman also stressed the importance of understanding the CSDDD as part of a broader system for the protection of human rights and the environment in the business sector, rather than as a standalone or isolated instrument. ‘We must not forget the United Nations framework, which establishes the fundamental principles; the OECD, which translates these principles into practical tools and guidelines; and the European Union, which is now introducing them as legally binding obligations for the first time.’ Dr Drenik Bavdek emphasised that all three levels must operate in a coordinated manner and that synergies must be sought: ‘If we fail to do so, we unnecessarily create additional complexity for both the state and companies. However, if we connect these frameworks, we can ensure greater legal clarity and greater system efficiency, while at the same time reducing the administrative burden on companies.’

The Ombudswoman concluded with a clear message: ‘The CSDDD must not become an end in itself. We must understand it as a tool – it is up to us whether we use it to achieve genuine change, or whether it merely remains another rule on paper.’