Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-j4x9h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-05T14:11:04.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Rights of Indigenous Peoples Towards a Just Energy Transition: The Dutch Approach to Mandatory Corporate Due Diligence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2025

Stephanie Bijlmakers Open the ORCID record for Stephanie Bijlmakers [Opens in a new window]  and
Nicola Jägers Open the ORCID record for Nicola Jägers [Opens in a new window]
Stephanie Bijlmakers*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Nicola Jägers
Affiliation:
Professor of Human Rights Law and Head of Department Public Law and Governance, Tilburg University, The Netherlands
*
Corresponding author: Stephanie Bijlmakers; Email: S.M.J.Bijlmakers@tilburguniversity.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The need to urgently shift away from fossil-based systems of energy for the sake of the planet and its people is clear. The green transition comes, however, with negative impacts on human rights and the environment, notably on the rights of Indigenous Peoples in the Global South, where most of the essential minerals and metals needed for the transition are found. In this piece, we discuss recent legal developments in the Netherlands from the perspective of the need for a just energy transition. Against the background of the recently adopted European Union (EU) Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), we analyze two draft Dutch due diligence laws and their potential in the context of a just energy transition. The focus is on the rights of Indigenous Peoples who are in an extremely vulnerable position in the transition process.

Keywords

CSDDDhuman rights and environmental due diligenceIndigenous Peoplesjust transitionThe Netherlands

Information

Type
Developments in the Field
Information
Business and Human Rights Journal , Volume 10 , Special Issue 1: Business, Human Rights and Just Transition in the Energy and Extractive Industries , February 2025 , pp. 274 - 280
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

I. Introduction

For the sake of the planet and its people there is an urgent need to shift away from fossil-based systems of energy. It is, however, also becoming ever more apparent that the green transition comes with negative impacts on human rights and the environment, with a notable impact on the rights of Indigenous Peoples in the Global South, where most of the essential critical minerals and metals needed for the transition are found. The World Bank estimates that by 2050, the demand for these raw materials will increase by 500 per cent.Footnote 1 The quest for the precious materials severely encroaches upon Indigenous and local communities, their forests, hunting and gathering grounds, sacred sites, farms and waters. More than half of the mining needed for the energy transition takes place on or near Indigenous territories.Footnote 2 It is important that Indigenous Peoples’ rights are respected and their voices are represented in decision-making. Internationally recognized rights of Indigenous Peoples, such as the principles of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) and the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment should be the guiding principles.

In this piece, we discuss the potential of recent legal developments in the Netherlands from this perspective of the need for a just Footnote 3 energy transition, taking into account the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Netherlands has committed itself to accelerating the energy transition. For the enormous volume of critical minerals and metals needed for this transition, the country is fully dependent on imports from a relatively small number of countries.Footnote 4 The Netherlands is also a country that has been at the forefront of some developments in the business and human rights domain.Footnote 5 It has been preparing the adoption of a law on due diligence for responsible business conduct since 2021.Footnote 6 As the Netherlands is an European Union (EU) Member State, the development of the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) must be taken into account.Footnote 7 This European Directive requires companies to identify, prevent and address human rights and environmental risks in their operations and supply chains. The Directive must be transposed into the national laws of EU Member States by July 2026. The Netherlands is an early mover, being the first EU Member State to draft a national law, the Bill on International Responsible Business (WIVO)Footnote 8 that will transpose the CSDDD. In this piece, we analyze the potential and some of the limitations of the two draft Dutch due diligence laws in relation to Indigenous Peoples and a just energy transition. We conclude that the draft Dutch due diligence law, while going beyond the European Directive in some respects, would fall short in terms of explicitly recognizing the rights of Indigenous Peoples. When transposing the CSDDD into its national law, the Netherlands will have to step up to ensure the energy transition is just for Indigenous Peoples whose rights are notably affected. The draft transposing law does not (yet) do so.

II. The European Union’s Approach to a Just Transition

The EU has set the ambitious goal of becoming climate-neutral by 2050.Footnote 9 To achieve this goal, the EU aims to, inter alia, increase its share of renewable energy in its energy mix to at least 32 per cent. This process is further accelerated under the influence of geopolitical developments, such as the war in Ukraine, which has led to imminent energy shortages and rising energy prices. These developments have pointed out the need to become independent from Russian fossil fuels and the importance of access to the critical raw materials needed for the green transition, such as cobalt and copper, which are used to produce batteries, wind turbines and solar panels. The fast-tracked energy transition is having a disproportionate negative impact on the human rights of Indigenous Peoples living in the vicinity of the main resource locations. To achieve an energy transition with rights-holders at the centre, strong due diligence laws aimed at prevention, mitigation and remediation are essential.Footnote 10 The CSDDD aims to advance the green transition and have a positive, tangible impact on workers, communities, the climate and the environment worldwide. The CSDDD seeks to set obligations for companies to identify, prevent, mitigate and put an end to actual and potential human rights and environmental adverse impacts throughout their chain of activitiesFootnote 11 and will apply to large companies in the EUFootnote 12 and to companies established outside the EU with a certain net turnover in the EU.Footnote 13 In the lead up to the adoption of the CSDDD several concerns were voicedFootnote 14 among which, particularly relevant in the context of a just energy transition, that the draft-proposal by the European Commission fell short in including genuine and meaningful engagement with rights-holders (to be distinguished from the broader notion of stakeholders), specifically Indigenous Peoples.Footnote 15 These groups are not only disproportionally affected but are also to be considered key agents in the green transition.Footnote 16 As pointed out by Bright and Buhmann, ‘the rights to participate and have access to information are key to effective risk-based due diligence’ and ‘companies should pay special attention to individuals and communities who are disproportionally affected by their [….] activities.’Footnote 17 Last-minute negotiations led to a considerable dilution of the earlier draft text. Specifically, restrictions to the Directive resulting in only 0.05 per cent of EU companies falling within its scope were met with disappointment by human rights advocates. Concerning Indigenous Peoples, it was regretted that references to their rights were only included in the recitalsFootnote 18 and not in the substantive articles of the Directive. Moreover, Indigenous People’s rights are not explicitly mentioned in the list of relevant human rights included in the CSDDD, and there is no reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). This weakens the CSDDD as a potential instrument to protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Thus, it is important to discuss whether legislative developments at the level of individual EU Member States, such as the Netherlands, provide (more) potential to protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples as it is these communities that stand to lose out significantly in the context of the energy transition. EU Member States are required to transpose the CSDDD into national law within two years after the CSDDD enters into force. As mentioned previously, the Netherlands has been the first EU Member State to publish its draft transposing law, the WIVO.

III. A Just Energy Transition for Indigenous Peoples: Potential of the Dutch Approach

Several countries have adopted or drafted human rights and environmental due diligence laws, which can play a pivotal role in ensuring a just transition.Footnote 19 The Netherlands adopted a due diligence law on child labour in 2019Footnote 20 and subsequently proposed a law containing a broad duty of care, the Dutch Bill on Responsible and Sustainable International Business Conduct (BRSIBC).Footnote 21 The latter law would introduce a general duty of care for all companies in the Netherlands that expect their activities or those of its business relations to have adverse impacts on human rights and the environment outside of the Netherlands. Based on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines, the Dutch law would require large companies to exercise due diligence by way of reporting, monitoring and in case needed, providing remedies or ending their activities. The adoption of the Dutch due diligence law would be an important step in the Netherlands’ implementation of its international (extraterritorial) human rights obligations.Footnote 22 The Dutch bill goes beyond the CSDDD on various accounts; the company scope of the Dutch bill is more encompassingFootnote 23, and the company’s due diligence obligations extend further into their value chain.Footnote 24 However, as is the case for the CSDDD, the Dutch bill falls short in including explicit protection for Indigenous Peoples. This bill requires that companies engage with stakeholders throughout the due diligence process, however without explicit reference to Indigenous Peoples.Footnote 25 Express reference to (the rights of) Indigenous Peoples would enhanceFootnote 26 and further clarify how participation by Indigenous Peoples is ‘meaningful.’ Contrary to the final version of the CSDDDFootnote 27 , Footnote 28, the Dutch bill does not require ‘meaningful’ stakeholder engagement by companies. Explicitly including principles such as FPIC would help further define stakeholder engagement in the rapid green energy transition with the most vulnerable, Indigenous Peoples at the centre. The BRSIBC faced delays and challenges in the legislative process. In 2021, the Dutch parliament decided to put the initiative on hold, largely because the attention shifted to the CSDDD. To transpose this directive into Dutch law, the WIVO was drafted and opened for public consultation in November 2024.Footnote 29

An analysis of the draft shows that the WIVOFootnote 30 does not yet hold much promise for the protection of Indigenous Peoples. The Dutch legislator decided to implement the European Directive ‘zuiver en lastenluw,’ meaning that it contains no other provisions than are essential for the implementation of the CSDDD and opts for a minimum approach to implementation that is the least burdensome for companies.Footnote 31 Even though the WIVO does include the need for ‘meaningful consultation,’ Indigenous Peoples are not explicitly mentioned. Thus, additional special attention for Indigenous Peoples as rights-holders who need to be consulted and their right to FPIC in the process of human rights and environmental due diligence is not recognized in the WIVO.Footnote 32 The accompanying explanatory note makes clear that implementation of Article 13 CSDDD (meaningful engagement with stakeholders) implies that corporations may pay particular attention to those communities protected under UNDRIP, but this does not follow from Article 13 CSDDD and, thus, is voluntary.Footnote 33 Following the public consultation, the Dutch implementation law will be amended with the expectation that it will be sent to Parliament in the Fall of 2025. Whether more attention will be devoted to Indigenous Peoples remains to be seen. At the time of writing, it is also unclear whether the adoption of the WIVO will revoke the earlier due diligence law discussed above, the BRSIBC.

IV. Conclusion

Indigenous Peoples are at particular risk in the rapid transition to green energy. Any due diligence legislation aimed at protecting against harm in this context should explicitly take their position and rights into account. The text of the draft Dutch due diligence law holds little promise as an instrument of protection for Indigenous Peoples affected by the rapid green transition. The EU CSDDD also does not take into account specifically the rights of Indigenous Peoples, at least not in the substantive articles, falling short in providing an instrument to protect their rights. Moreover, the first law transposing the European Directive into domestic law, the Dutch draft WIVO, does not (yet) seize the opportunity to raise the level of protection of Indigenous Peoples at the national level. This does not bode well for the coming laws on human rights and environmental due diligence as instruments to protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples that face the biggest threat to their rights in the context of the transition to green energy.Footnote 34

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1 World Bank Group, ‘Mineral Production to Soar as Demand for Clean Energy Increases,’ https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2020/05/11/mineral-production-to-soar-as-demand-for-clean-energy-increases (accessed 3 February 2025).

2 Owen, J.R. et al ‘Energy transition minerals and their intersection with land-connected peoples’ (2023) 6 Nature Sustainability 203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Just transition refers to the increasing recognition that the transition into new forms of sustainable energy has significant impact on the rights of people(s). Initially focused on the rights of workers, the concept has come to embrace a much broader range of human rights concerns. It has found recognition, inter alia, in the 2015 Paris Agreement and in the 2021 Glasgow Climate Pact.

4 It is estimated that the quantity of raw materials needed for Dutch consumers and businesses to achieve the energy transition can be as much as 15 per cent or even 25 per cent of current global production, even though the Netherlands accounts for just 0.5 per cent of global final energy consumption. ‘National raw materials strategy: material resources for the major transitions’ (9 December 2022), 7.

5 For example, the Netherlands was the second country in the world to adopt a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights in 2014. It has adopted a due diligence law on child labour and various sectoral covenants for responsible business conduct.

6 The Dutch Bill on Responsible and Sustainable International Business Conduct (Initiatiefwet Duurzaam en Verantwoord Internationaal Ondernemen) 2022 (BRSIBC) (NL). The analysis in this article is based on the revised text of the BRSIBC that was submitted to the Dutch parliament in November 2022, as amended by the ‘Nota van Wijziging’ of 15 September 2023 and the ‘Tweede Nota van Wijziging’ of 5 December 2023. Similar legislative developments have taken place in other countries, inter alia, France, Germany and Norway. For a discussion see: S. Deva, ‘Mandatory human rights due diligence laws in Europe: A mirage for rightsholders?’ (2023) 36 Leiden Journal of International Law, 289.

7 On 24 April 2024, the European Parliament passed the CSDDD. This was the final step in the two-year EU legislative process. The CSDDD entered into force on 25 July 2024.

8 The Dutch Bill on Responsible Business Conduct (Wet Internationaal Verantwoord Ondernemen) 2024 (WIVO). This draft law was opened for public consultation from November to December 2024, available here (in Dutch): https://www.internetconsultatie.nl/wivo/b1 The WIVO will now move to the next step in the legislative process. At the time of writing, the expectation is that the bill will be sent to the Dutch parliament in Fall 2025.

9 EU Commission, ‘European Green Deal: the Commission proposes transformation of EU economy and society to meet climate ambitions’ (14 July 2021), https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_3541 (accessed 3 February 2025).

10 For a discussion of the pivotal role ‘risk-based due diligence can play in the energy transition in a manner that respects the human rights of those at risk of being adversely affected due to the expansion of green energy production,’ see Bright, C. and Buhmann, K., ‘Risk-Based Due Diligence, Climate Change, Human Rights and the Just Transition’ (2021) 12 Sustainability 10454 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 The CSDDD states that ‘the chain of activities should cover activities of a company’s upstream business partners related to the production of goods or the provision of services by the company […] and activities of a company’s downstream business partners related to the distribution, transport and storage of the product, where the business partners carry out those activities for the company or on behalf of the company. […] The term ‘chain of activities’ as defined in this Directive is without prejudice to the terms ‘value chain’ or ‘supply chain’ as defined in or within the meaning of other Union legislation’ (Recital 25).

12 Defined as those with more than 1,000 employees on average (including temporary workers and other workers in a non-standard form of employment, under certain conditions) and a net worldwide turnover exceeding EUR 450 million (art 2.1.(a)). The Directive also applies to a company that is the ultimate parent company of a group of companies that together reaches this threshold (art 2.1.(b)). It also applies to a company that entered into or is the ultimate parent company of a group that entered into franchising or licensing agreements in the Union in return for royalties with independent third-party companies, where those agreements ensure a common identity, a common business concept and the application of uniform business methods, and where those royalties amounted to more than EUR 22.5 million in the last financial year and provided that the company had or is the ultimate parent of a group that had a net worldwide turnover of more than EUR 80 million in the EU (art 2.1.(c)). The Directive applies if a company has met these conditions for each of the last two consecutive financial years (art 2.5).

13 More than EUR 450 million within the EU (art 2.2.(a)). The Directive also applies to a third-country company that is the ultimate parent company of a group of companies that collectively fulfills this Union turnover criterion (art 2.2.(b)). It also applies to a third-country company that entered into or is the ultimate parent company of a group that entered into franchising or licensing agreements in the Union in return for royalties with independent third-party companies, where those agreements ensure a common identity, a common business concept and the application of uniform business methods, and where those royalties amount to more than EUR 22.5 million and provided that the company had a net worldwide turnover of more than EUR 80 million in the Union (art 2.2.(c)). This Directive applies if the third-country company has met this Union turnover criterion for each of the last two consecutive financial years (art 2.5).

14 See National Contact Point for Responsible Business Conduct The Netherlands, Analysis of the draft Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, on the basis of the OECD Guidelines (2023); Johannes Blankenbach and Saskia Wilks, ‘Due-diligence directive – key issues for final negotiations,’ Social Europe (14 June 2023), https://www.socialeurope.eu/due-diligence-directive-key-issues-for-final-negotiations (accessed 3 February 2025).

15 For an analysis of the rather restrictive approach taken towards stakeholder engagement in the proposal by the Commission (compared to the proposal by the Council and the European Parliament), see: Global Justice Clinic at Erfurt University in cooperation with the German Institute for Human Rights and Luxembourg University, Strengthening Stakeholder Engagement in the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, Policy Briefing Paper, June 2023; FIDH, Stakeholder engagement in the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) (Paris: FIDH, 2023). To live up to the established principle of FPIC, meaningful engagement is required throughout the due diligence process. See also: Forest Peoples Programme, ‘Open Letter to EU Institutions: Uphold our internationally recognized rights in the CSDDD’ (12 October 2023), https://www.forestpeoples.org/en/news/2023/open-letter-eu-institutions-csddd (accessed 3 February 2025).

16 ILO, ‘Indigenous Peoples and a Just Transition for All’ Just Transition Policy Brief (November 2022), https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/documents/publication/wcms_860607.pdf (accessed 3 February 2025).

17 Bright and Buhmann, note 10, 11.

18 Recital 33 calls for special attention for, inter alia, Indigenous Peoples referring to the UNDRIP including the right to FPIC. Recital 65 calls for meaningful engagement during the due diligence process with, inter alia, Indigenous Peoples. See, for an analysis of the substantive articles in the CSDDD related to ‘meaningful engagement,’ note xxviii.

19 Deva, note 6.

20 For a discussion of this law see: Liesbeth Enneking, ‘Putting the Dutch Child Labour Due Diligence Act into Perspective’ (2019) 4 Erasmus Law Review 20. If and when the WIVO law transposing the CSDDD into Dutch law is adopted, the Dutch Child Labour Bill will be revoked.

21 BRSIBC, note 6.

22 In several General Comments, the UN supervisory bodies have indicated that States have a duty to adopt (due diligence) legislation with extra-territorial effect. For an analysis, see Augenstein, Daniel, ‘Towards a new legal consensus on business and human rights: a 10th anniversary essay’ (2022) 40:1 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 35, 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 The BRSIBC would apply to a large undertaking that meets at least two out of three criteria: An average of 250 employees during the year (including part-time and agency workers), a balance sheet of at least EUR 20 million, and a net turnover of at least EUR 40 million. This Draft due diligence law would also apply to a foreign company from outside the EU that meets the requirements for a large undertaking and has a substantial connection with the Netherlands, as evidenced by a branch in the Netherlands or the number of customers or activities in the Netherlands (art 2.1.3).

24 For the purpose of the Dutch bill, the company’s due diligence obligations would extend to all potential and actual adverse impacts caused by its business relations (‘zakenrelaties’), meaning a relationship with a contractor, subcontractor or other legal entities in the company’s value chain, including state entities, that are involved in the business activities of the corporation, including the financing, insurance or reinsurance of the company. The BRSIBC’s definition of value chain (‘waardeketen’) is broader in scope than ‘chain of activities’ under the CSDDD (see note xi). For the purpose of the Dutch due diligence bill, value chain entails ‘all of a company’s own activities, services, products, production lines, supply chain, customers, as well as the activities of its business relations, and, in case present, its subsidiaries.’ BRSIBC, art 1.1. Memorie van Toelichting zoals gewijzigd naar aanleiding van het advies van de afdeling advisering van de raad van state, Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal (Memorie van toelichting), Tweede Kamer, Vergaderjaar 2022-2023, 35761, No.10, 61. Nota van Wijziging. Ontvangen 15 september 2023. Tweede Kamer, Vergaderjaar 2022-2023, 35761, No. 17. Tweede Nota van Wijziging. Ontvangen 5 december 2023, Tweede Kamer, Vergaderjaar 2023-2024, 35761, No. 20.

25 More specifically, the Dutch bill introduces information and consultation requirements for companies when developing (art 2.2.1.2) and communicating (externally) a due diligence policy (art 2.2.2.4.b), identifying (art 2.3.1.2.c) and prioritizing (art 2.3.1.4.b) their risks for human rights, climate change and the environment, when managing and prioritizing these risks (art 2.4.1.3), when deciding to end their own activity (art 2.4.3.2.e) or their business relationship (art 2.4.4.3.e), when tracking the effectiveness of their responses (art 2.5.1.2.c) and providing remedies (art 2.7.2.1).

26 Similar to the earlier European Parliament’s proposal for the CSDDD, the Dutch bill could demand that companies inform and consult Indigenous Peoples and pay particular attention to their needs, and fully respect the UNDRIP. The Dutch list of potential human rights violations also does not include those human rights whose violations are disproportionately felt by Indigenous Peoples, such as the collective right of peoples to self-determination and lands, territories and natural resources (art 2.1.2.2.).

27 The CSDDD requires ‘meaningful’ engagement with stakeholders during the due diligence process (art 5.1.e). More specifically, the CSDDD introduces information and consultation requirements for companies when gathering the necessary information on human rights risks (art 13.3.(a)) in order to identify and assess (art 8) and prioritize (art 9) their risks for human rights; when developing prevention and corrective action plans pursuant to art 10(2) and art 11(3) and enhanced prevention and corrective action plans pursuant to art 10(6) and art 11(7), when deciding, as a last resort, to terminate or suspend a business relationship in case human rights risks could not be prevented or adequately mitigated (art 10(6)) or the actual adverse impact could not be brought to an end or be minimized by measures taken (art 11(7)), when adopting appropriate measures to remediate adverse impacts where a company caused or jointly caused an actual adverse impact (art 12) and as appropriate, when developing qualitative and quantitative indicators for monitoring (art 15).

28 For the purpose of the CSDDD, stakeholders are defined as individuals, groupings, communities or entities whose rights or interests are or could be affected by the products, services and operations of a company, its subsidiaries and its business partners. Indigenous Peoples are not expressly mentioned as stakeholders. The CSDDD requires that consultations with stakeholders are effective and transparent, and that companies as appropriate provide stakeholders with relevant and comprehensive information and additional information upon their request (art 13.2). The CSDDD does not specifically explain what makes engagement ‘effective,’ though it emphasizes the need to address barriers to engagement and protect affected stakeholders from retaliation or retribution, for instance by maintaining ‘confidentiality and anonymity’ (art 13.5). Companies may consult additionally with ‘experts,’ where effective stakeholder engagement is not reasonably possible, who could arguably include Indigenous Peoples (art 13.4). The European Commission will issue guidance providing information for stakeholders and their representatives on how to engage throughout the due diligence process (art 19.2.(g)).

29 Public consultation was closed on 29 December 2024. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is now working on an amended bill that will be put before the Council of State for advice. The expectation is that the draft bill will subsequently be submitted to the House of Representatives in Fall 2025. The analysis in this article is based on the text of the WIVO that was presented for public consultation in November 2024.

30 The WIVO would request the appointment of a supervisory authority (the Authority for Consumers and Markets, ACM) to monitor and enforce compliance with due diligence obligations. The authority would be authorized to issue a binding instruction, impose an administrative sanction, that is a fine of max 5 per cent of the net worldwide turnover, and an order subject to a penalty. Supervision would not be primarily aimed at sanctioning but incentivizing companies to improve their due diligence. The Dutch legislator considers that existing Dutch law on tort implements the CSDDD, and introduces only three rules, related to the limitation period for civil claims, excluding a safe-harbour for legal accountability in case companies participated in sector initiatives or used verification by an independent third party, and to determine that national provisions prevail in the transposition of art 29 of the WIVO. Civil law claims based on CSDDD could thus be brought on the existing legal basis of section 6:162 of the Dutch civil code. The law also does also not alter existing Dutch law on criminal liability, which currently allows for criminal sanctioning of certain serious crimes based on the Dutch International Crimes Act, such as human trafficking and forced labour.

31 Consultatieversie memorie van toelichting wet(svoorstel) internationaal verantwoord ondernemen (Explanatory Note) 2.3, 16.

32 This concern was raised by several NGOs during the public consultation. Inter alia, Oxfam and MVO Platform pointed out the need to include explicit references to Indigenous People and the rights that protect them such as PFIC.

33 Note 31, 91.

34 It should be noted that it is still too early to draw definitive conclusions, as the progress towards human rights and environmental due diligence legislation is constantly evolving. At the time of writing, the EU Commission announced it will develop a so-called Omnibus proposal revisiting certain aspects of recent regulations that were aimed at encouraging responsible business conduct, including the CSDDD. Concerns have been voiced that this might jeopardize the CSDDD which was adopted after three years of negotiations. See: https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/Letter_of_European_NHRIs_on_the_omnibus_proposal.pdf (accessed 3 February 2025).