CSDDD風暴：德國動搖歐盟永續共識

當前德國的政策轉向，對歐盟整體 ESG 規範的穩定性與一致性構成嚴峻挑戰。

Germany’s recent pivot in sustainability policy presents a serious challenge to the stability and coherence of the European Union’s ESG regulatory framework. As a key component of the EU Sustainable Finance Action Plan, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) is tightly interlinked with other core regulations such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting

CSDDD 作為歐盟「永續金融行動計畫」（EU Sustainable Finance Action Plan）的一環，與《企業永續報導指令》（CSRD）、《生態設計永續產品規則》（ESPR）等其他核心規範密切連動。

Directive (CSRD) and the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR). Should Germany ultimately withdraw its domestic implementation or exert pressure on the EU to cancel the CSDDD altogether, it would likely trigger a reassessment of the depth and enforceability of ESG rules across the EU - potentially undermining the existing consensus on sustainable regulation.

若德國最終撤回國內版本並施壓歐盟取消 CSDDD，勢必將引發歐盟內部關於 ESG 規範深度與執行力的重新審視，甚至可能動搖目前已有的監管共識。

According to the European Commission’s original proposal, the CSDDD would require companies with more than 1,000 employees and over €450 million in annual revenue to conduct due diligence across their value chains to identify, address, and remedy human rights and environmental risks. The directive also envisions expanding its scope by 2030 to include more mid-sized companies, complementing the CSRD’s mandatory disclosure framework and creating a unified system of sustainability governance through transparency, action, and accountability.

根據歐盟執委會原先規劃，CSDDD 將要求員工超過 1,000 人、營收超過 4.5 億歐元的企業，對其價值鏈上人權與環境風險進行盡職調查與修正計畫。該法案也預計在 2030 年擴大適用範圍至更多中型企業，配合 CSRD 的強制揭露機制，形成一套貫穿揭露、行動與問責的永續治理架構。

However, German opposition - voiced notably by CDU leader Friedrich Merz - comes at a time when the European economy is grappling with significant headwinds from geopolitical instability, energy transition costs, and persistent inflation. Businesses have increasingly voiced concerns over the compliance burden and legal uncertainty posed by the directive. German manufacturers and export-driven firms, in particular, fear that excessive regulation will erode their cost competitiveness against non-EU rivals such as the U.S. and China.

然而，梅爾茲的表態，正值歐洲經濟因地緣政治、能源轉型與高通膨等挑戰陷入動盪之際。企業界日益強烈地反映對合規成本與法律不確定性的疑慮，尤其是德國製造業與出口導向型企業，更擔心過度規範導致失去與美國、中國等非歐盟競爭對手的成本優勢。

Leading business associations such as BusinessEurope and Germany’s DIHK (Association of German Chambers of Commerce and Industry) have repeatedly called for a reassessment of the CSDDD’s implementation timeline and scope. They argue that companies need greater regulatory flexibility

歐洲商總（BusinessEurope）與德國工商總會（DIHK）等主要商會組織，也已多次呼籲重新評估 CSDDD 的執行時間表與涵蓋範圍，並強調應給予企業更多「合規靈活性」與「可預期性」。梅爾茲的立場不僅回應了這些訴求，也可能代表一種更廣泛的政治風向轉變，特別是在 2024 年歐洲議會選舉後，中間偏右與保守派勢力抬頭，對 ESG 政策構成新的政治張力。

and predictability. Merz’s position reflects these demands and may signal a broader political shift - especially in the aftermath of the 2024 European Parliament elections, which saw a rise in center-right and conservative forces, adding new political pressure on the EU’s ESG agenda.

此外，若 CSDDD 最終被取消或弱化，將對企業如何準備 CSRD 所要求的「雙重重大性分析」（double materiality assessment）與供應鏈風險揭露帶來制度性矛盾。企業將面臨揭露要求與實際執行監控機制之間的落差，不僅影響報導品質，也可能降低投資人對歐盟永續市場的信心。

Furthermore, if the CSDDD is ultimately scrapped or significantly weakened, it will create a structural contradiction for companies preparing to meet CSRD requirements, particularly around double materiality assessments and supply chain risk disclosures. Businesses would face a disconnect between what they are required to report and what they are expected to monitor and act upon - potentially degrading report quality and undermining investor confidence in the EU’s sustainable finance market.

從政策一致性、企業法遵連續性到投資者預期穩定性，德國的這項政策宣示無疑為歐洲 ESG 規範未來走向投下震撼彈。接下來，歐盟執委會、歐洲議會與其他成員國如何回應德國的挑戰，將成為觀察歐洲 ESG 立法穩定性與全球永續治理趨勢的重要指標。

From the perspective of policy coherence, regulatory continuity, and investor expectation stability, Germany’s recent stance sends a shockwave through the future direction of ESG regulation in Europe. How the European Commission, European Parliament, and other Member States respond to this challenge will be a critical indicator of both the resilience of EU ESG legislation and the broader trajectory of global sustainability governance.