Effective remedy under UNGPs and CSDDD after EU Omnibus: Now What and How
The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) make access to effective remedy a core corporate responsibility: companies should provide remedy where they have caused or contributed to harm, and cooperate in enabling remedy where harm is linked through their business relationships. Treating remedy as an operating requirement, not just a principle, strengthens sustainability performance, reduces risk, supports compliance, and builds trust with affected stakeholders.
The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) is a wide-ranging attempt to harmonise corporate responsibility for human rights and environmental impacts, including requirements linked to remedy and grievance mechanisms. While the Directive broadly aligns with the UNGPs on these points, the EU Omnibus would weaken several provisions intended to make remedy more workable for victims.
Based on our experience working with companies on access to remedy and the development of effective grievance mechanisms, the following elements of the UNGPs and the CSDDD merit particular attention from companies.
Elements of access to remedy: what companies need to keep straight
1) Scope of business responsibilities
Access to remedy is a human right. Under UNGP-aligned practice, failing to provide or enable remedy after harm can itself be an adverse human rights impact. That pushes companies to act not only when they cause or contribute to harm, but also when harm is directly linked to their operations, products, or services through business relationships.
The UNGPs and the CSDDD both expect companies to provide or cooperate in remedy when they cause or contribute to an impact, described as “jointly caused” in the Directive. Remedy is understood as restoring affected rightsholders as closely as possible to their situation before the harm occurred.
Where an impact is caused solely by a business partner, the CSDDD asks companies to:
voluntarily provide remedy, and
use their influence to enable effective remedy.
This connects directly to leverage: companies are expected to use leverage to prevent and mitigate impacts, including impacts tied to failures to provide remedy.
2) Proportionality
Both frameworks emphasise proportionality: remediation should match the gravity of the impact and the company’s involvement. For senior professionals, the practical implication is governance discipline: explicit decision rules, escalation thresholds, and consistent outcomes that can be defended under scrutiny.
3) Remedy ecosystem
The UNGPs promote a “remedy ecosystem” in which judicial and non-judicial mechanisms are complementary. The CSDDD reflects this by combining non-judicial mechanisms with civil liability provisions for intentionally or negligently failing to comply with due diligence obligations.
The new CSDDD removes the civil liability provisions from the CSDDD, overriding the requirement for Member States to prioritise a harmonised liability framework. The practical outcome is greater jurisdictional fragmentation and increased complexity for companies facing claims under differing national standards.
The new CSDDD also removes the Directive’s explicit provision allowing trade unions and NGOs to file claims on behalf of victims, potentially reducing access routes to remedy.
4) Remediation mechanisms: “complaints procedure” and “notification mechanism”
Both frameworks expect companies to establish and or participate in accessible grievance mechanisms, described in the CSDDD as a “complaints procedure.” These are not just reporting channels. They function as early warning systems for actual or potential impacts.
The UNGPs define effectiveness criteria for grievance mechanisms, which the CSDDD reinforces:
legitimate
accessible
predictable
equitable
transparent
rights-compatible
a source of continuous learning
In addition, the CSDDD mandates an accessible “notification mechanism” so persons and entities can submit information or concerns about actual or potential adverse impacts, including options for anonymity and safeguards against retaliation.
Companies can meet these requirements through joint initiatives, including those led by industry associations, multi-stakeholder platforms, or global framework agreements. The Omnibus retains the requirement for effective grievance mechanisms, while introducing a maximum harmonisation principle that would prevent Member States from setting higher standards.
5) Stakeholder engagement
Both frameworks frame remediation as dependent on engagement and dialogue with stakeholders. The Omnibus narrows the definition of “stakeholder” to “directly” affected workers and their representatives, individuals, and communities whose rights or interests could be directly affected.
At the same time, it retains the requirement to consult affected individuals when providing for and cooperating in remediation, and in the development and operation of effective grievance mechanisms. The narrower scope may make it harder to identify impacts deeper in the value chain, which can reduce victims’ opportunities to access effective remedy.
Our team at Futureproof Solutions is actively involved in human rights due diligence work across Europe on strategic, high-impact sites, and we consistently see the same pattern: remedy quality depends on whether engagement is structured, resourced, and connected to decisions.
Facilitating and providing effective remedy
Meeting UNGP expectations is the most robust way to stay aligned as regulatory implementation evolves and anticipate the new CSDDD becoming effective. Four priorities stand out.
1) Know and strengthen your remedy ecosystem
Map the remedy ecosystem, including peer and multi-stakeholder initiatives with grievance mechanisms. Use this to design effective grievance mechanisms, apply leverage to address harm, engage business partners and key stakeholders, and plan for a responsible exit where needed. A strong ecosystem extends reach, supports creativity where direct oversight is limited, and can improve access to remedy for rightsholders.
2) Develop and maintain effective grievance mechanisms
As the Omnibus limits access to civil liability and narrows proactive due diligence to a company’s own operations and subsidiaries, internal grievance systems become a critical channel for victims and a key tool for due diligence. Companies must still act on “plausible information” of harm involving indirect partners, making grievance mechanisms essential for identifying and addressing risks, including complaints linked to indirect partners.
3) Conduct meaningful stakeholder engagement
Engagement is essential to understanding and strengthening a company’s remedy ecosystem, and the CSDDD outlines UNGP-aligned criteria for this work. Despite the Omnibus changes, companies should proactively engage stakeholders, including civil society raising concerns about actual or potential impacts, including those arising from indirect business partners.
4) Provide effective remedy, and evidence it
Providing remedy requires assessing whether the company caused, contributed to, or is directly linked to adverse impacts. International standards recognise multiple forms of remedy, which may be used individually or in combination:
restitution
compensation
rehabilitation
satisfaction
guarantees of non-repetition
From the perspective of affected rightsholders, an effective remedy should be accessible, affordable, adequate, and timely.
Practical next steps
Document your remedy ecosystem and define when to use internal channels vs joint initiatives.
Benchmark your “complaints procedure” against the UNGP effectiveness criteria and assign owners for each gap.
Make the “notification mechanism” explicit: anonymity, anti-retaliation safeguards, and clear handling standards.
Establish decision rules for “cause, contribute, direct link,” including approval thresholds for remedy decisions.
Define how you will use influence with business partners to enable remedy where a partner solely caused harm.
Standardise evidence across cases: intake, triage, investigation, outcome, and continuous learning so compliance and value claims stand up to scrutiny.
How Futureproof Solutions helps
At Futureproof Solutions, we help companies run effective remedy as a business control that protects value. That means designing grievance and notification mechanisms that function as early warning systems, setting decision rules for “cause, contribute, direct link,” and translating leverage expectations into procurement and contractor controls.
Through Human Rights & Social Impact, Supply Chain & Responsible Sourcing, and Reporting, we help you embed remedy into governance and operations, then build an evidence trail that stands up to sustainability, risk, and compliance inspection.
Let us know how we can help.