In 2026 the EU’s two flagship sustainability laws, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, look very different from the versions the market feared. The Omnibus simplification package narrowed who is caught, capped what large buyers can demand from small suppliers, and pushed the toughest obligations out to the end of the decade. This is what changed, why the EU changed it, and what it now means commercially for energy majors and their vendors. Company counts and savings figures are marked as estimates.<\/p>\n
For two years the story told to European business was that a wave of sustainability rules was coming for almost everyone. In 2026 that story is out of date. The EU’s Pack de simplification omnibus<\/a> Elle a remani\u00e9 \u00e0 la fois la directive sur le reporting de durabilit\u00e9 des entreprises et la directive sur le devoir de diligence en mati\u00e8re de durabilit\u00e9 des entreprises, et est devenue loi sous la forme de la directive (UE) 2026\/470 apr\u00e8s le vote du Parlement europ\u00e9en le 16 d\u00e9cembre 2025 et l'approbation finale du Conseil le 24 f\u00e9vrier 2026. Elle est en vigueur depuis le 18 mars 2026.<\/p>\n La directive relative aux rapports, CSRD, ne s'applique d\u00e9sormais qu'aux entreprises de plus de 1\u00a0000 salari\u00e9s et dont le chiffre d'affaires net d\u00e9passe 450 millions d'euros. Ce seul changement est d\u00e9cisif. Conseil et Parlement<\/a> Les petites et moyennes entreprises cot\u00e9es en bourse ont \u00e9galement \u00e9t\u00e9 exclues du champ d'application. La Commission estime que ce resserrement permet d'\u00e9liminer environ 80 % des entreprises pr\u00e9c\u00e9demment concern\u00e9es et d'\u00e9conomiser environ 4,4 milliards d'euros par an en co\u00fbts de mise en conformit\u00e9. Selon l'EFRAG, le nombre d'entreprises non europ\u00e9ennes concern\u00e9es passe d'environ 10\u00a0000 \u00e0 environ 1\u00a0200. Certains analystes estiment la baisse du nombre d'entreprises couvertes \u00e0 pr\u00e8s de 90 %, une estimation qu'il convient de consid\u00e9rer comme une \u00e9valuation externe.<\/p>\n La directive relative au devoir de vigilance (CSDDD) a \u00e9t\u00e9 consid\u00e9rablement r\u00e9duite et son calendrier repouss\u00e9. Il ne s'agissait pas d'une d\u00e9cision isol\u00e9e, mais d'une s\u00e9rie de mesures\u00a0: une directive de suspension des d\u00e9lais, adopt\u00e9e le 14\u00a0avril\u00a02025, a d'abord report\u00e9 les \u00e9ch\u00e9ances, puis l'accord de d\u00e9cembre\u00a02025 a vid\u00e9 la directive de sa substance. Pour comprendre pourquoi l'UE a pass\u00e9 l'ann\u00e9e\u00a02025 \u00e0 d\u00e9manteler des r\u00e8gles qu'elle avait adopt\u00e9es quelques mois auparavant, il faut partir des enjeux politiques de la comp\u00e9titivit\u00e9.<\/p>\n CSRD, Directive (EU) 2022\/2464, replaced the weaker Non-Financial Reporting Directive to force standardised, audited disclosure on a double-materiality basis, meaning a company must report both its impact on the world and the financial risk that sustainability issues pose to it. The design targeted heavy-emitting sectors deliberately, because for an oil and gas producer the emissions that matter most sit downstream, in the combustion of sold products, which dwarf operational emissions. CSDDD, Directive (EU) 2024\/1760, came from a different pressure: supply-chain human-rights and environmental scandals, and a patchwork of national laws such as France’s duty of vigilance and Germany’s supply-chain act, which the EU wanted to harmonise into one standard for the largest companies.<\/p>\n Then the political ground shifted. The 2024 Draghi report on European competitiveness and the Letta report on the single market, followed by the November 2024 Budapest Declaration calling for a simplification revolution, reframed the whole regime as a drag on European industry at a moment of energy-cost and competitiveness anxiety. That produced the Omnibus. The Council was explicit about the motive. Morten Bodskov, the Danish minister steering the file, said, “For years, European businesses have faced wave after wave of red tape. This has slowed green investments and weakened our competitiveness. Now we are taking a big and important step in the right direction. With clear and simple rules, companies can focus on their core business.”<\/p>\n The Commission’s framing is that the goals are unchanged and only the burden is lighter. President Ursula von der Leyen put it as, “We stay the course. The goals are cast in stone. The goals stay, the objective stays, but we want to reach it better and faster. And for that, we have to reduce complexity.” Critics disagree that the substance survived. The European Coalition for Corporate Justice called the due-diligence directive “gutted,” and ClientEarth’s Amandine Van den Berghe argued that “what is a cornerstone of responsible business in Europe is being turned into a political bargaining chip.” Both readings matter commercially, because the rollback is written with review clauses that could re-widen scope later, which we return to below.<\/p>\n The cleanest way to read the 2026 position is as two separate instruments with separate thresholds and separate clocks. CSRD is the reporting duty. In-scope companies publish sustainability statements built on the European Sustainability Reporting Standards, or ESRS, which are themselves being streamlined to cut the number of mandatory data points. The climate standard, ESRS E1, is the decisive one for oil and gas because it requires disclosure of Scope 1, Scope 2 and material Scope 3 emissions, and Scope 3 is where a producer’s real footprint sits. Reporting must carry limited assurance, so the figures have to be audit-grade, not marketing-grade, with the assurance standard due by 1 July 2027. The amended CSRD first applies to financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2027.<\/p>\n La CSDDD (obligation de diligence raisonnable) s'applique d\u00e9sormais aux entreprises de plus grande taille. Elle concerne uniquement les entreprises de plus de 5\u00a0000 salari\u00e9s et r\u00e9alisant un chiffre d'affaires net mondial sup\u00e9rieur \u00e0 1,5 milliard d'euros, avec un seuil \u00e9quivalent de 1,5 milliard d'euros de chiffre d'affaires europ\u00e9en pour les entreprises hors UE. L'accord de d\u00e9cembre 2025 a supprim\u00e9 l'obligation de plan de transition climatique, all\u00e9g\u00e9 la fr\u00e9quence des audits de diligence raisonnable (de annuelle \u00e0 quinquennale), remplac\u00e9 le r\u00e9gime harmonis\u00e9 de responsabilit\u00e9 civile de l'UE par le droit national et plafonn\u00e9 les sanctions \u00e0 3\u00a0% du chiffre d'affaires net mondial, contre 5\u00a0% auparavant. Les \u00c9tats membres doivent transposer cet accord d'ici le 26\u00a0juillet 2028\u00a0; il est applicable \u00e0 compter du 26\u00a0juillet 2029, les premi\u00e8res d\u00e9clarations de diligence raisonnable portant sur les exercices ouverts \u00e0 partir du 1er\u00a0janvier 2030. Le tableau ci-dessous compare les deux r\u00e9gimes.<\/p>\n Le changement le plus important pour les fournisseurs ne r\u00e9side pas dans les seuils initiaux, mais dans le plafond de la cha\u00eene de valeur. Une entreprise de moins de 1\u00a0000 employ\u00e9s ne peut \u00eatre tenue de fournir que les informations pr\u00e9vues par la norme de d\u00e9claration volontaire pour les PME (VSME), et les demandes d'informations adress\u00e9es aux partenaires de moins de 5\u00a0000 employ\u00e9s sont soumises \u00e0 des limitations similaires. En clair, la loi n'autorise plus un gros acheteur \u00e0 imposer un questionnaire ESG illimit\u00e9 \u00e0 un petit fournisseur. C'est ce point crucial que tout fournisseur d'\u00e9nergie doit int\u00e9grer, et il modifie la strat\u00e9gie commerciale, comme l'expliquera la section suivante.<\/p>\n Pour les g\u00e9ants de l'\u00e9nergie, la r\u00e9ponse est simple\u00a0: rien ne les exempte de leurs responsabilit\u00e9s. Shell, TotalEnergies, Eni, BP, Equinor, Repsol et OMV d\u00e9passent largement les seuils de 1\u00a0000 employ\u00e9s et de 450 millions d'euros de chiffre d'affaires\u00a0; ils restent donc tous soumis \u00e0 la directive CSRD, et les plus importants le sont \u00e9galement \u00e0 la directive CSDDD. Ils continuent de publier des rapports conformes \u00e0 l'ESRS, incluant les informations importantes de port\u00e9e 3 et les assurances obligatoires. Shell et TotalEnergies ont d'ailleurs indiqu\u00e9 qu'ils poursuivraient leur alignement sur l'ESRS malgr\u00e9 l'assouplissement des exigences, car les investisseurs et les pr\u00eateurs continuent d'int\u00e9grer le risque ESG dans leurs calculs. L'all\u00e8gement obtenu par ces g\u00e9ants est r\u00e9el, mais limit\u00e9\u00a0: la suppression de l'obligation de plan de transition, le plafonnement des p\u00e9nalit\u00e9s \u00e0 3\u00a0%, la suppression de la responsabilit\u00e9 civile \u00e0 l'\u00e9chelle de l'UE et le passage d'un cycle de diligence raisonnable annuel \u00e0 un cycle quinquennal r\u00e9duisent tous ces \u00e9l\u00e9ments sans modifier les fondements du reporting.<\/p>\n For their suppliers the change is larger, and it is widely misread. Most sub-1,000-employee oilfield-services, engineering, logistics, chemicals and software vendors are now outside direct CSRD and CSDDD scope, and the value-chain cap legally limits what an in-scope major can demand from them to the VSME data set. But out of the law does not mean out of the tender. An in-scope oil and gas buyer still needs Scope 3 and human-rights data to complete its own audited report, and nothing in the Omnibus stops that buyer choosing suppliers on ESG grounds. As the procurement platform Jaggaer notes, ESG questionnaires, emissions factors and supplier codes of conduct remain embedded in energy-sector tenders. The regulation caps the demand; the buyer’s own reporting need keeps it alive.<\/p>\n Voil\u00e0 le tournant commercial. Le contr\u00f4leur n'est plus la directive, mais le client, et ce dernier exige toujours des donn\u00e9es de durabilit\u00e9 v\u00e9rifi\u00e9es, car la norme ESRS E1 fait de son propre Scope 3 le champ de bataille du reporting. C'est la m\u00eame logique fournisseur-donn\u00e9es qui d\u00e9termine d\u00e9j\u00e0 qui vend aux grandes compagnies p\u00e9troli\u00e8res dans le cadre des achats Scope 3, comme nous l'avons examin\u00e9 dans notre analyse de\u2026 Shell’s Scope 3 and sustainable procurement<\/a>, et il fonctionne en parall\u00e8le avec le m\u00e9canisme de contr\u00f4le du co\u00fbt carbone cr\u00e9\u00e9 par le EU’s CBAM<\/a>. Un fournisseur capable de fournir sur demande des donn\u00e9es ESG propres au format VSME appara\u00eet proactif tout en limitant sa propre charge de travail, et un fournisseur proposant des facteurs d'\u00e9missions v\u00e9rifi\u00e9s ou des donn\u00e9es carbone au niveau du produit devient strat\u00e9giquement pr\u00e9cieux pour tout acheteur cherchant \u00e0 finaliser son propre rapport.<\/p>\n Le calendrier \u00e0 court terme est \u00e9tabli. D\u2019ici 2026, les \u00c9tats membres transposent la directive CSRD amend\u00e9e, l\u2019EFRAG simplifie l\u2019ESRS en r\u00e9duisant le nombre de donn\u00e9es requises, et les premiers rapports \u00e9tablis dans le cadre de ce champ d\u2019application restreint couvriront les exercices financiers \u00e0 compter du 1er janvier 2027. En 2027, la norme d\u2019assurance limit\u00e9e est adopt\u00e9e d\u2019ici le 1er juillet, et la CSDDD se rapproche de son \u00e9ch\u00e9ance de transposition, fix\u00e9e au 26 juillet 2028, et de son application, pr\u00e9vue le 26 juillet 2029. Ainsi, la charge de conformit\u00e9 est all\u00e9g\u00e9e et report\u00e9e par rapport \u00e0 ce que pr\u00e9voyait le r\u00e9gime ant\u00e9rieur \u00e0 Omnibus, mais elle ne dispara\u00eet pas pour autant pour les grandes banques.<\/p>\n La question plus large est de savoir si ce recul se maintiendra. Les deux directives contiennent d\u00e9sormais des clauses de r\u00e9vision qui rouvrent explicitement la question d'un nouvel \u00e9largissement du champ d'application et du r\u00e9tablissement d'un r\u00e9gime de responsabilit\u00e9 civile harmonis\u00e9 \u00e0 l'\u00e9chelle de l'UE, ce qui signifie que l'accord actuel est politiquement contingent et non d\u00e9finitif. Des recours juridiques d'ONG sont d\u00e9j\u00e0 en cours, et une future Commission ou un futur Parlement pourrait durcir \u00e0 nouveau les r\u00e8gles. Pour un fournisseur, cela plaide contre le fait de consid\u00e9rer cet assouplissement comme une raison de cesser d'investir dans les donn\u00e9es ESG, car la tendance observ\u00e9e depuis plus de dix ans penche toujours vers une plus grande transparence, et non l'inverse.<\/p>\n L'interpr\u00e9tation strat\u00e9gique pour le secteur B2B de l'\u00e9nergie est la suivante\u00a0: la loi Omnibus a modifi\u00e9 la nature des obligations sans en changer l'objectif. Le marketing alarmiste de 2024, o\u00f9 tous les fournisseurs \u00e9taient persuad\u00e9s de l'arriv\u00e9e imminente du CSRD, est d\u00e9sormais erron\u00e9. Les fournisseurs qui comprennent la v\u00e9ritable situation post-Omnibus \u2013 un p\u00e9rim\u00e8tre d'application r\u00e9duit, un plafonnement des r\u00e9percussions, la suppression de l'obligation de plan de transition et des sanctions all\u00e9g\u00e9es \u2013 peuvent gagner la confiance de leurs concurrents qui continuent de jouer sur la peur de la non-conformit\u00e9. Les gagnants seront les fournisseurs qui auront correctement interpr\u00e9t\u00e9 le changement et transform\u00e9 des donn\u00e9es de qualit\u00e9 auditable, align\u00e9es sur l'ESRS, en un argument de vente, \u00e0 l'instar des entreprises les plus performantes qui ont fait de l'\u00e9valuation du contenu local un avantage concurrentiel. Analyse IKTVA et ICV<\/a>.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" La directive relative \u00e0 la publication d'informations sur la durabilit\u00e9 des entreprises (CSRD) impose aux grandes entreprises de publier des rapports de durabilit\u00e9 audit\u00e9s, \u00e0 double mat\u00e9rialit\u00e9, conform\u00e9ment aux normes europ\u00e9ennes de reporting de durabilit\u00e9, incluant les \u00e9missions significatives de port\u00e9e 3 de leur cha\u00eene de valeur. La directive relative au devoir de vigilance en mati\u00e8re de durabilit\u00e9 des entreprises (CSDDD) impose aux tr\u00e8s grandes entreprises d'identifier et de traiter les atteintes aux droits humains et les atteintes \u00e0 l'environnement dans leurs cha\u00eenes d'activit\u00e9.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":1890,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"p54_article_data":"{\"meta\":{\"kicker\":\"Insight \u00b7 Government & Policy\",\"topics\":[\"Energy\",\"Strategy\",\"Capital\"],\"title\":\"CSRD and CSDDD After the Omnibus: What the EU's 2026 Sustainability Rules Now Demand From Oil and Gas Suppliers\",\"dek\":\"In 2026 the EU's two flagship sustainability laws, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, look very different from the versions the market feared. The Omnibus simplification package narrowed who is caught, capped what large buyers can demand from small suppliers, and pushed the toughest obligations out to the end of the decade. This is what changed, why the EU changed it, and what it now means commercially for energy majors and their vendors. Company counts and savings figures are marked as estimates.\",\"date\":\"10 July 2026\",\"readTime\":\"12 min read\",\"author\":\"Project 54\"},\"quickAnswer\":{\"q\":\"What do CSRD and CSDDD require of oil and gas companies in 2026?\",\"a\":\"The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) makes large companies publish audited, double-materiality sustainability reports under the European Sustainability Reporting Standards, including material Scope 3 value-chain emissions. The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) makes the very largest companies identify and address human-rights and environmental harms in their chains of activity. In 2026, after the EU's Omnibus simplification package became law as Directive (EU) 2026\/470, CSRD applies only to companies with more than 1,000 employees and over 450 million euros in net turnover, which still captures every European oil and gas major but exempts most of their smaller suppliers. CSDDD was cut back harder: it now binds only companies above 5,000 employees and 1.5 billion euros in turnover, its mandatory climate-transition-plan duty was deleted, penalties are capped at 3 percent of net worldwide turnover, and it applies from 26 July 2029. The net effect is that the biggest oil and gas companies remain fully regulated, the data burden on sub-1,000-employee vendors is explicitly capped, and the timeline is looser than before.\"},\"takeaways\":[\"The Omnibus package became law as Directive (EU) 2026\/470, in force from 18 March 2026, after a Parliament vote in December 2025 and Council sign-off on 24 February 2026.\",\"CSRD scope narrowed to companies with more than 1,000 employees and over 450 million euros net turnover, which the Commission estimates removes about 80 percent of previously covered firms and saves around 4.4 billion euros a year.\",\"Every European oil and gas major, Shell, TotalEnergies, Eni, BP, Equinor, Repsol and OMV, remains firmly in CSRD scope and must still report material Scope 3 emissions under ESRS E1 with mandatory limited assurance.\",\"CSDDD was softened sharply: threshold raised to 5,000 employees and 1.5 billion euros turnover, the mandatory climate transition plan deleted, EU-wide civil liability removed, penalties capped at 3 percent, and application delayed to 26 July 2029.\",\"A value-chain cap means a large buyer can only ask a sub-1,000-employee supplier for data in the voluntary SME standard, so the law no longer forces ESG data down the chain, but buyers still choose suppliers on it.\"],\"sections\":[{\"id\":\"what-changed\",\"q\":\"What exactly changed in 2026?\",\"h\":\"From a Feared Regime to a Narrowed One\",\"p\":[\"For two years the story told to European business was that a wave of sustainability rules was coming for almost everyone. In 2026 that story is out of date. The EU's Omnibus simplification package<\/a> reworked both the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, and it became law as Directive (EU) 2026\/470 after the European Parliament voted on 16 December 2025 and the Council gave final sign-off on 24 February 2026. It has been in force since 18 March 2026.\",\"The reporting directive, CSRD, now applies only to companies with more than 1,000 employees and net turnover above 450 million euros. That single change is decisive. The Council and Parliament<\/a> also removed listed small and medium enterprises from scope. The Commission estimates the narrowing removes about 80 percent of the companies previously caught and saves around 4.4 billion euros a year in compliance costs, and per EFRAG the number of in-scope non-EU companies falls from about 10,000 to about 1,200. Some analysts put the drop in covered firms as high as 90 percent, which is best treated as a third-party estimate.\",\"The due-diligence directive, CSDDD, was cut back much harder, and its timeline pushed out. This was not one decision but a sequence: a Stop-the-Clock directive adopted on 14 April 2025 first delayed the deadlines, then the December 2025 deal removed substance. To understand why the EU spent 2025 dismantling rules it had passed only months earlier, you have to start with the politics of competitiveness.\"]},{\"id\":\"root-cause\",\"q\":\"Why did the EU build these rules, then roll them back?\",\"h\":\"The Root Cause: A Green Deal Meets a Competitiveness Backlash\",\"p\":[\"CSRD, Directive (EU) 2022\/2464, replaced the weaker Non-Financial Reporting Directive to force standardised, audited disclosure on a double-materiality basis, meaning a company must report both its impact on the world and the financial risk that sustainability issues pose to it. The design targeted heavy-emitting sectors deliberately, because for an oil and gas producer the emissions that matter most sit downstream, in the combustion of sold products, which dwarf operational emissions. CSDDD, Directive (EU) 2024\/1760, came from a different pressure: supply-chain human-rights and environmental scandals, and a patchwork of national laws such as France's duty of vigilance and Germany's supply-chain act, which the EU wanted to harmonise into one standard for the largest companies.\",\"Then the political ground shifted. The 2024 Draghi report on European competitiveness and the Letta report on the single market, followed by the November 2024 Budapest Declaration calling for a simplification revolution, reframed the whole regime as a drag on European industry at a moment of energy-cost and competitiveness anxiety. That produced the Omnibus. The Council was explicit about the motive. Morten Bodskov, the Danish minister steering the file, said, \\\"For years, European businesses have faced wave after wave of red tape. This has slowed green investments and weakened our competitiveness. Now we are taking a big and important step in the right direction. With clear and simple rules, companies can focus on their core business.\\\"\",\"The Commission's framing is that the goals are unchanged and only the burden is lighter. President Ursula von der Leyen put it as, \\\"We stay the course. The goals are cast in stone. The goals stay, the objective stays, but we want to reach it better and faster. And for that, we have to reduce complexity.\\\" Critics disagree that the substance survived. The European Coalition for Corporate Justice called the due-diligence directive \\\"gutted,\\\" and ClientEarth's Amandine Van den Berghe argued that \\\"what is a cornerstone of responsible business in Europe is being turned into a political bargaining chip.\\\" Both readings matter commercially, because the rollback is written with review clauses that could re-widen scope later, which we return to below.\"]},{\"id\":\"mechanism\",\"q\":\"What do the two directives now actually require, and by when?\",\"h\":\"Two Directives, Two Thresholds, Two Timelines\",\"p\":[\"The cleanest way to read the 2026 position is as two separate instruments with separate thresholds and separate clocks. CSRD is the reporting duty. In-scope companies publish sustainability statements built on the European Sustainability Reporting Standards, or ESRS, which are themselves being streamlined to cut the number of mandatory data points. The climate standard, ESRS E1, is the decisive one for oil and gas because it requires disclosure of Scope 1, Scope 2 and material Scope 3 emissions, and Scope 3 is where a producer's real footprint sits. Reporting must carry limited assurance, so the figures have to be audit-grade, not marketing-grade, with the assurance standard due by 1 July 2027. The amended CSRD first applies to financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2027.\",\"CSDDD is the conduct duty, and it now sits much higher up the size ladder. It binds only companies with more than 5,000 employees and more than 1.5 billion euros in net worldwide turnover, with an equivalent 1.5 billion euro EU-turnover test for non-EU firms. The December 2025 deal deleted the mandatory climate-transition-plan obligation, relaxed the due-diligence review cycle from annual to once every five years, removed the EU-harmonised civil-liability regime in favour of national law, and capped penalties at 3 percent of net worldwide turnover rather than the original floor of at least 5 percent. Member States must transpose it by 26 July 2028 and it applies from 26 July 2029, with the first due-diligence statements covering financial years starting on or after 1 January 2030. The table sets the two regimes side by side.\",\"The single most important change for suppliers is not in either headline threshold but in the value-chain cap. A company below 1,000 employees can only be asked for the information contained in the voluntary SME reporting standard, known as VSME, and information requests to partners under 5,000 employees are similarly limited. In plain terms, the law no longer lets a large buyer force an unlimited ESG questionnaire onto a small vendor. That is the pivot every energy supplier needs to understand, and it changes the sales conversation, as the next section sets out.\"],\"table\":{\"cols\":[\"Feature\",\"CSRD (reporting)\",\"CSDDD (due diligence)\"],\"rows\":[[\"Size threshold\",\"1,000+ employees and 450m euro turnover\",\"5,000+ employees and 1.5bn euro turnover\"],[\"Core duty\",\"Audited ESRS sustainability report\",\"Identify and address value-chain harms\"],[\"Scope 3 emissions\",\"Required where material (ESRS E1)\",\"Climate transition plan mandate deleted\"],[\"Assurance\",\"Limited assurance mandatory\",\"Not an assurance regime\"],[\"Penalty\",\"Set by Member States\",\"Capped at 3 percent of turnover\"],[\"First application\",\"Financial years from 1 Jan 2027\",\"Applies from 26 July 2029\"]]}},{\"id\":\"impacts\",\"q\":\"Who is caught, and what does it mean commercially?\",\"h\":\"The Buyer, Not the Law, Is Now the ESG Gatekeeper\",\"p\":[\"For the energy majors the answer is simple: nothing gets them off the hook. Shell, TotalEnergies, Eni, BP, Equinor, Repsol and OMV all clear the 1,000-employee and 450-million-euro thresholds many times over, so all remain in CSRD scope, and the largest also sit inside CSDDD. They keep publishing ESRS-based reports with material Scope 3 disclosure and mandatory assurance, and both Shell and TotalEnergies have signalled they will continue aligning to ESRS regardless of the softening, because investors and lenders still price ESG risk. The relief the majors won is real but narrow: the deleted transition-plan mandate, the 3 percent penalty cap, the removal of EU-wide civil liability and the five-yearly rather than annual due-diligence cycle all reduce legal exposure without changing the reporting core.\",\"For their suppliers the change is larger, and it is widely misread. Most sub-1,000-employee oilfield-services, engineering, logistics, chemicals and software vendors are now outside direct CSRD and CSDDD scope, and the value-chain cap legally limits what an in-scope major can demand from them to the VSME data set. But out of the law does not mean out of the tender. An in-scope oil and gas buyer still needs Scope 3 and human-rights data to complete its own audited report, and nothing in the Omnibus stops that buyer choosing suppliers on ESG grounds. As the procurement platform Jaggaer notes, ESG questionnaires, emissions factors and supplier codes of conduct remain embedded in energy-sector tenders. The regulation caps the demand; the buyer's own reporting need keeps it alive.\",\"That is the commercial pivot. The gatekeeper is no longer the directive, it is the customer, and the customer still wants verified sustainability data because ESRS E1 makes its own Scope 3 the reporting battleground. This is the same supplier-data logic that already decides who sells to big oil under Scope 3 procurement, which we examined in our analysis of Shell's Scope 3 and sustainable procurement<\/a>, and it runs in parallel to the carbon-cost gate created by the EU's CBAM<\/a>. A supplier that can hand over clean, VSME-format ESG data on request looks proactive while capping its own workload, and a supplier that offers verified emissions factors or product-level carbon data becomes strategically valuable to any buyer trying to close its own report.\"]},{\"id\":\"trajectory\",\"q\":\"Where is the regime heading, and is the rollback permanent?\",\"h\":\"A Contested Simplification With the Door Left Open\",\"p\":[\"The near-term calendar is settled. Through 2026, Member States transpose the amended CSRD, EFRAG streamlines the ESRS to fewer data points, and the first reports under the narrowed scope will cover financial years from 1 January 2027. In 2027 the limited-assurance standard is adopted by 1 July, and CSDDD moves toward its 26 July 2028 transposition deadline and 26 July 2029 application. So the compliance load is lighter and later than the pre-Omnibus regime implied, but for the majors it does not disappear.\",\"The larger question is whether the rollback holds. Both directives now contain review clauses that explicitly reopen the questions of re-widening scope and of restoring an EU-harmonised civil-liability regime, which means the current settlement is politically contingent rather than final. NGO legal challenges are already live, and a future Commission or Parliament could tighten the rules again. For a supplier, that argues against treating the softening as a reason to stop investing in ESG data capability, because the direction of travel over a decade still points toward more disclosure, not less.\",\"The strategic reading for energy B2B is that the Omnibus changed the shape of the obligation without changing the destination. The panic-marketing of 2024, when every vendor was told CSRD was coming for them, is now inaccurate, and suppliers who understand the real post-Omnibus position, narrowed scope, a capped trickle-down, a deleted transition-plan mandate and softer penalties, can win trust against competitors still selling compliance fear. The winners will be the suppliers who read the change correctly and turn audit-grade, ESRS-aligned data into a selling point, the same way the best sellers turned local-content scoring into an advantage in our IKTVA and ICV analysis<\/a>.\"]}],\"media\":{\"image\":{\"src\":\"https:\/\/projectfifty4.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/meeting-room-discussion.jpg\",\"label\":\"Audit-grade sustainability reporting is now a boardroom obligation for every European energy major\",\"credit\":\"Project 54\"},\"infographicLabel\":\"After the Omnibus: CSRD caught at 1,000 employees and 450m euros, CSDDD at 5,000 employees and 1.5bn euros, applying from 2029\",\"pdf\":{\"href\":\"https:\/\/projectfifty4.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/csrd-csddd-eu-oil-gas-reporting-2026.pdf\",\"title\":\"CSRD and CSDDD After the Omnibus: Briefing Deck\",\"meta\":\"13-slide briefing \u00b7 Project 54\"}},\"poll\":{\"q\":\"What is the smartest response for an energy supplier to the post-Omnibus rules?\",\"note\":\"Your selection maps how you read the commercial priority. No vote tallies, this is a reflection tool.\",\"options\":[{\"id\":\"a\",\"label\":\"Get VSME-format ESG data ready on request\",\"insight\":\"The pragmatic reading. The value-chain cap makes VSME the legal ceiling on what a large buyer can demand, so clean VSME data looks proactive while capping your own workload.\"},{\"id\":\"b\",\"label\":\"Build verified Scope 3 and product-carbon data\",\"insight\":\"The strategic reading. ESRS E1 makes the buyer's Scope 3 the battleground, so verified emissions factors and product-level carbon data make you valuable to any in-scope customer.\"},{\"id\":\"c\",\"label\":\"Reassure buyers you are out of direct scope\",\"insight\":\"The risk reading. Being outside the directive does not remove you from the tender, because the buyer still chooses suppliers on ESG grounds to complete its own report.\"},{\"id\":\"d\",\"label\":\"Keep investing despite the softer rules\",\"insight\":\"The long-view reading. Review clauses could re-widen scope, and the decade-long direction still points to more disclosure, so ESG capability remains a durable advantage.\"}]},\"faq\":[{\"q\":\"What is the difference between CSRD and CSDDD?\",\"a\":\"CSRD, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, is a reporting duty: in-scope companies must publish audited, double-materiality sustainability reports under the European Sustainability Reporting Standards, including material Scope 3 emissions. CSDDD, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, is a conduct duty: the very largest companies must identify, prevent and address human-rights and environmental harms in their chains of activity. CSRD is about what you disclose; CSDDD is about what you do.\"},{\"q\":\"Who has to comply with CSRD in 2026 after the Omnibus?\",\"a\":\"After the Omnibus package became law as Directive (EU) 2026\/470, CSRD applies to companies with more than 1,000 employees and net turnover above 450 million euros. That still captures every European oil and gas major but exempts most smaller suppliers and listed SMEs. The Commission estimates the change removes about 80 percent of previously covered companies. The amended CSRD first applies to financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2027.\"},{\"q\":\"How does CSDDD change after the Omnibus simplification?\",\"a\":\"CSDDD was cut back sharply. Its threshold rose to more than 5,000 employees and 1.5 billion euros in net worldwide turnover, the mandatory climate-transition-plan obligation was deleted, the review cycle was relaxed from annual to once every five years, EU-harmonised civil liability was removed in favour of national law, and penalties were capped at 3 percent of net worldwide turnover. Member States must transpose it by 26 July 2028 and it applies from 26 July 2029.\"},{\"q\":\"Do energy suppliers still need ESG data if they are out of scope?\",\"a\":\"In practice, yes. Most sub-1,000-employee suppliers are now outside direct CSRD and CSDDD scope, and a value-chain cap limits what a large buyer can legally demand to the voluntary SME standard, VSME. But in-scope oil and gas majors still need Scope 3 and human-rights data to complete their own audited reports, and nothing stops them choosing suppliers on ESG grounds. So verified ESG data remains a de facto tender requirement even where the law no longer forces it.\"},{\"q\":\"How is CSRD different from CBAM?\",\"a\":\"They are different instruments. CSRD and CSDDD govern what a company must disclose and do about its own and its value chain's sustainability impacts, with scope set by employee and turnover thresholds. CBAM, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, is a border carbon price paid by importers of specific carbon-intensive goods such as steel, aluminium and cement, regardless of company size. One is a reporting-and-governance regime; the other is a financial tariff on embedded carbon crossing the EU border.\"}],\"newsletter\":{\"kicker\":\"The Energy Growth Brief\",\"title\":[\"Get the next\",\"intelligence drop\"],\"body\":\"Join energy and industrial leaders getting our marketing, AI-growth and revenue-architecture intelligence, direct, no filler.\",\"cadence\":\"Twice monthly\",\"reach\":\"Gulf \u00b7 MENA \u00b7 Asia \u00b7 Europe\",\"cta\":\"Subscribe\",\"note\":\"No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We read every reply.\",\"success\":\"You're on the list\",\"successBody\":\"Welcome to The Energy Growth Brief, watch your inbox for the next dispatch.\"},\"related\":[{\"title\":\"The EU's Carbon Border Tax Goes Live: What CBAM's 2026 Definitive Phase Means for Energy and Industrial Suppliers\",\"topic\":\"Energy\",\"href\":\"https:\/\/projectfifty4.com\/eu-cbam-2026-carbon-border-adjustment\/\"},{\"title\":\"Shell's Scope 3 and Sustainable Procurement: How the Supplier Carbon Data Gate Decides Who Sells to Big Oil\",\"topic\":\"Strategy\",\"href\":\"https:\/\/projectfifty4.com\/shell-scope-3-sustainable-procurement-suppliers\/\"},{\"title\":\"What Is a Sustainable Procurement Application, and Why It Decides Who Gets to Bid\",\"topic\":\"Strategy\",\"href\":\"https:\/\/projectfifty4.com\/what-is-a-sustainable-procurement-application\/\"},{\"title\":\"What Are IKTVA and ICV? The Gulf Local-Content Rules That Decide Who Wins Energy Tenders\",\"topic\":\"Energy\",\"href\":\"https:\/\/projectfifty4.com\/iktva-icv-local-content-gcc\/\"}]}","p54_faq":"","p54_media":"","p54_comments_enabled":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[92,125],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3599","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-analysis","category-strategy"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/projectfifty4.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3599","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/projectfifty4.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/projectfifty4.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/projectfifty4.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/projectfifty4.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3599"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/projectfifty4.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3599\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3600,"href":"https:\/\/projectfifty4.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3599\/revisions\/3600"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/projectfifty4.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1890"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/projectfifty4.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3599"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/projectfifty4.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3599"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/projectfifty4.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3599"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}La cause profonde\u00a0: un pacte vert se heurte \u00e0 un revers en mati\u00e8re de comp\u00e9titivit\u00e9<\/h2>\n
Deux directives, deux seuils, deux \u00e9ch\u00e9anciers<\/h2>\n
C\u2019est d\u00e9sormais l\u2019acheteur, et non la loi, qui est le garant des crit\u00e8res ESG.<\/h2>\n
Une simplification contest\u00e9e, la porte restant ouverte<\/h2>\n