Mr. Ross Fitzpatrick:

I thank the Chair and committee members for the invitation to present today on behalf of Christian Aid and the Irish Coalition for Business and Human Rights. I endorse the comments made by my colleagues in the Irish Coalition for Business and Human Rights.

In the interests of time, I will focus on one particular aspect of the European Commission’s omnibus proposals, namely, the changes related to climate transition plans in the corporate sustainability due diligence directive. These changes are technical but their implications are significant. The core idea behind the inclusion of climate transition plans in the CSDDD is very simple. In order to align with the Paris Agreement and meet the EU’s legally binding climate targets, companies, especially large ones, need to have credible, forward-looking plans to decarbonise their operations and global value chains. These plans are not just about reporting. They are supposed to be a practical roadmap for how a company will reduce emissions, adapt its business model and contribute to a just transition. Unfortunately, the omnibus proposals significantly weaken this core purpose. I will briefly highlight three reasons that these changes would be significantly harmful.

First, the proposal to remove the obligation on companies to put into effect these climate transition plans risks rendering them effectively toothless. Companies could publish glossy, high-level documents with no requirement to follow through. This not only weakens accountability but also undermines those companies that are genuinely trying to lead. Without clear obligations and consequences, the biggest polluters will simply continue with business as usual, while those companies that invest early in decarbonisation will be placed at a competitive disadvantage. This approach would reward inaction and penalise genuine climate leadership at a time when we need exactly the opposite.

Second, weakening the climate obligations on companies will directly undermine wider EU and national climate efforts. Let us not forget that the EU has made a binding commitment to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. That cannot be achieved unless the private sector is required to play its part. Climate transition plans are one of the only tools within the CSDDD that explicitly connect corporate conduct with the EU’s broader climate obligations. Removing the implementation requirement sends the completely wrong signal at precisely the wrong time, especially when we need to be raising ambition, not lowering it.

Third, and crucially, without corporate contributions to emissions reductions, there is a serious risk that EU member states will fall short of their legally binding greenhouse gas reduction targets. If companies are allowed to publish transition plans without any obligation to implement them, they will not meaningfully contribute to national decarbonisation efforts. The consequences here are not just political. They are potentially legal. As highlighted by both the Fiscal Advisory Council and the Climate Change Advisory Council, failure to meet these targets could leave member states, including Ireland, exposed to litigation and potentially to significant EU-level fines. In effect, the inaction of a relatively small number of large companies could create real and lasting risks for governments and taxpayers and for climate action across the EU.

In our view, these changes represent a serious backward step. That is why we are urging the committee and the Government to ensure that the omnibus proposals, as they relate to climate transition plans, are firmly rejected. The CSDDD must retain a clear and binding obligation on companies not just to publish, but to implement credible and ambitious transition plans. Without that, we risk weakening one of the few corporate accountability tools available to help to deliver on the EU’s climate commitments.

I thank the committee and am happy to answer any questions.