Impact Statements
Plastic pollution is one of the most pressing environmental challenges today, yet regulation has largely focused on products, waste and recycling rather than the corporate decisions that shape plastics throughout their lifecycle. This article examines how the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive can help address this gap by requiring companies to identify, assess and manage environmental risks across their value chains. Although the Directive does not directly regulate plastics, it has the potential to influence decisions on product design, material selection, sourcing, manufacturing and supply chain management. The analysis demonstrates how corporate due diligence can complement existing plastics regulation by embedding environmental considerations into business governance and risk management processes. At the same time, the article highlights important limitations, including challenges relating to enforcement, causation and diffuse pollution. The findings are relevant for policymakers seeking more coherent plastics governance, businesses adapting to emerging sustainability obligations and researchers examining the relationship between corporate accountability and environmental protection. More broadly, the article contributes to ongoing debates on how procedural governance mechanisms can support the transition towards a more sustainable and circular economy.
Introduction
Plastic pollution as a systemic environmental challenge
Plastic has become integral to contemporary economies, yet its durability, large-scale production and widespread mismanagement have generated diffuse, cumulative and transboundary environmental harm (WEF, 2016; Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Verma, Shome, Sinha, Sinha, Jha, Kumar, Kumar, Shubham, Sharma and Vara Prasad2021; MacLeod et al., Reference Macleod, Arp, Tekman and Jahnke2021; Singh and Walker, Reference Singh and Walker2024). Global plastic production continues to increase while recycling rates remain comparatively low, resulting in persistent environmental leakage into soils, rivers and oceans (Reis et al., Reference Reis, Wu and Potyatynnyk2017; Diggle and Walker, Reference Diggle and Walker2022; OECD, 2022; Nayanathara Thathsarani Pilapitiya and Ratnayake, Reference Ratnayake2024). Marine plastic pollution alone generates significant economic losses in fisheries, shipping and tourism sectors, while plastic-associated chemicals pose well-documented risks to human health and ecosystems (Hahladakis et al., Reference Hahladakis, Velis, Weber, Iacovidou and Purnell2018; Abalansa et al., Reference Abalansa, El Mahrad, Vondolia, Icely and Newton2020; Morrison et al., Reference Morrison, Trevisan, Ranasinghe, Merrill, Santos, Hong, Edward, Jayasundara and Somarelli2022; Vandenberg, Reference Vandenberg2024; Bel Hassen et al., Reference Bel Hassen, Bellaaj Zouari, Abdennadher, Assaf, Nakad, Abboud, Khammeri, Banni, Panzeri, Gomes and Hamd2025). The diversity of plastic materials, combined with limited recycling infrastructure and continued reliance on virgin feedstocks, further exacerbates these challenges (Kibria et al., Reference Kibria, Masuk, Safayet, Nguyen and Mourshed2023; Fayshal, Reference Fayshal2024).
A defining characteristic of plastic pollution is that it rarely results from isolated incidents attributable to a single actor. Instead, it emerges from the cumulative effects of decisions taken across multiple stages of the plastics lifecycle (Michel et al., Reference Michel, Romano and Zannini2017; Collins, Reference Collins2019; Maljean-Dubois and Mayer, Reference Maljean-Dubois and Mayer2020; Dan and Tao, Reference Dan and Tao2026). Product design, material selection, sourcing, manufacturing, distribution, consumption and waste management practices collectively determine environmental outcomes. This multi-actor and temporally extended structure complicates regulatory approaches that rely on identifiable sources of harm and direct causal relationships (Vince and Hardesty, Reference Vince and Hardesty2018; Bergkamp, Reference Bergkamp2021; Tanaka, Reference Tanaka2023). Corporate actors play a central role in shaping plastics-related environmental impacts. Decisions relating to product design, material composition, supply chain governance and production volumes directly influence environmental outcomes across the lifecycle (Blasiak et al., Reference Blasiak, Leander, Jouffray and Virdin2021; Bokor, Reference Bokor2024; Cowger et al., Reference Cowger, Willis, Bullock, Conlon, Emmanuel, Erdle, Eriksen, Farrelly, Hardesty, Kerge, Li, Li, Liebman, Tangri, Thiel, Villarrubia-Gómez, Walker and Wang2024).
While voluntary corporate initiatives have increased in recent years, they often prioritise downstream interventions – such as recycling or packaging redesign – rather than addressing upstream structural drivers embedded in business models (Blasiak et al., Reference Blasiak, Leander, Jouffray and Virdin2021; UNEA, 2022; Diana et al., Reference Diana, Reilly, Karasik, Vegh, Wang, Wong, Dunn, Blasiak, Dunphy-Daly, Rittschof, Vermeer, Pickle and Virdin2022a). These characteristics highlight the need for governance approaches capable of addressing plastics-related risks across value chains (Nielsen et al., Reference Nielsen, Hasselbalch, Holmberg and Stripple2020; O’Meara, Reference O’Meara2023; Boeve and de Waal, Reference Boeve and de Waal2024). Increasing attention has therefore been directed towards regulatory frameworks that integrate environmental responsibility into corporate governance and risk management systems, rather than focusing solely on waste management or end-of-pipe solutions (Xanthos and Walker, Reference Xanthos and Walker2017; Johansen et al., Reference Johansen, Christensen, Ramos and Syberg2022; Boeve and de Waal, Reference Boeve and de Waal2024; Bokor, Reference Bokor2024).
The EU CSDDD as a governance instrument for plastics-related harm
The European Union (EU) has increasingly moved towards governance models that integrate environmental and human rights considerations into corporate operations (EC, 2020).Footnote 1 Within this context, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD),Footnote 2 which entered into force on 25 July 2024 and was subsequently amended through Directive (EU) 2025/794 (EU, 2025a) (the Stop-the-Clock Directive) and the First Omnibus Package on Sustainability (EU, 2026) adopted in 2026, remains a significant development in EU sustainability governance.Footnote 3 The Directive requires in-scope companies to identify, prevent and mitigate actual or potential adverse human rights and environmental impacts arising from their own operations, those of their subsidiaries and, within defined limits, their chains of activities (Baltrunaite et al., Reference Baltrunaite, Canini, Chiarelli, Consigliere, Coppotelli, Fornasari, Loizzo, Mocetti, Muraca and Parrella2024; Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024; Ciacchi, Reference Ciacchi2024; McCullagh, Reference Mccullagh2024). Although the CSDDD does not explicitly target plastic pollution, its definition of “adverse environmental impacts,” interpreted through the international instruments listed in Annex Part II, encompasses issues closely connected to plastics, including chemical hazards, waste movements and marine pollution (Mackie, Reference Mackie2021; Cowger et al., Reference Cowger, Willis, Bullock, Conlon, Emmanuel, Erdle, Eriksen, Farrelly, Hardesty, Kerge, Li, Li, Liebman, Tangri, Thiel, Villarrubia-Gómez, Walker and Wang2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025). From this perspective, the relevance of the CSDDD for plastics lies primarily in its procedural approach to environmental risk management. Rather than introducing new substantive environmental standards, it requires companies to integrate processes of risk identification, prioritisation and mitigation into corporate governance and value chain management (Hummel and Jobst, Reference Hummel and Jobst2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025). These sprocesses may influence corporate choices regarding product design, material use, supplier engagement and foreseeable environmental impacts across upstream and downstream activities (Turunen et al., Reference Turunen, Mateo and Alaranta2023; Mallick et al., Reference Mallick, Salling, Pigosso and Mcaloone2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025). In this way, the Directive does not replace existing EU plastics and circular economy (CE) instruments, such as the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR),Footnote 4 the Waste Framework Directive (WFD),Footnote 5 and the Single Use Plastics Directive (SUPD),Footnote 6 but complements them by incorporating environmental risk considerations within corporate decision-making across global value chains. Under the CSDDD, the concept of “chain of activities” covers upstream activities related to production and certain downstream activities, notably distribution, transport and storage carried out for or on behalf of the company or by business partners.Footnote 7 However, it generally excludes product use and post-consumer end-of-life stages, a delimitation that has direct implications for plastics-related waste responsibilities, and which is further examined in Section 4 “Applying the CSDDD to plastic pollution across global value chains” (Parlak De Oliveira Serra, Reference Parlak De Oliveira Serra2025; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025).
At the same time, questions remain regarding the extent to which procedural due diligence obligations can effectively address diffuse and cumulative environmental harms such as plastic pollution, particularly where impacts arise through complex chains of activities and involve multiple contributing actors (Collins, Reference Collins2019; Maljean-Dubois and Mayer, Reference Maljean-Dubois and Mayer2020; UNEA, 2023; Brander et al., Reference Brander, Senathirajah, Fernandez, Weis, Kumar, Jahnke, Hartmann, Alava, Farrelly, Almroth, Groh, Syberg, Buerkert, Abeynayaka, Booth, Cousin, Herzke, Monclús, Morales-Caselles, Bonisoli-Alquati, Al-Jaibachi and Wagner2024; Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024). These challenges are especially relevant in the plastics context, where environmental impacts frequently arise beyond a company’s immediate operations and may involve numerous actors across the plastics lifecycle. The scope of downstream responsibility under the Directive, therefore, raises important questions regarding the extent to which companies may be expected to address plastics-related risks beyond production and distribution stages (Maitre-Ekern and Dalhammar, Reference Maitre-Ekern and Dalhammar2019; Apel et al., Reference Apel, Kümmerer, Sudheshwar, Nowack, Som, Colin, Walter, Breukelaar, Meeus, Ildefonso, Petrovykh, Elyahmadi, Huttunen-Saarivirta, Dierckx, Devic, Valsami-Jones, Brennan, Rocca, Scheper, Strömberg and Soeteman-Hernández2024; Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025). Similar governance questions arise in the context of ongoing negotiations towards a legally binding global plastics treaty (UNEA, 2022), which similarly seeks to address plastics-related risks across the full lifecycle of plastics (Simon et al., Reference Simon, Raubenheimer, Urho, Unger, Azoulay, Farrelly, Sousa, Van Asselt, Carlini, Sekomo, Schulte, Busch, Wienrich and Weiand2021; Xu et al., Reference Xu, Zhang and Han2024). The analysis, therefore, includes a brief comparison with the emerging global plastics treaty, identifying complementarities and gaps between treaty-level substantive controls and firm-level procedural due diligence obligations.
Contribution, research question and analytical framework
Although plastic pollution (Bucci et al., Reference Bucci, Tulio and Rochman2020; Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Verma, Shome, Sinha, Sinha, Jha, Kumar, Kumar, Shubham, Sharma and Vara Prasad2021; MacLeod et al., Reference Macleod, Arp, Tekman and Jahnke2021; Horton, Reference Horton2022; Villarrubia-Gómez et al., Reference Villarrubia-Gómez, Almroth, Ryberg, Eriksen and Cornell2022; Bidashimwa et al., Reference Bidashimwa, Hoke, Huynh, Narkpitaks, Priyonugroho, Ha, Burns and Weissman2023; Villarrubia-Gómez et al., Reference Villarrubia-Gómez, Carney Almroth, Eriksen, Ryberg and Cornell2024; Cleveland et al., Reference Cleveland, Cleveland, Morrison, Dinh, Hai, Freitas Ribeiro and Duy2025), plastics regulation (da Costa et al., Reference Da Costa, Mouneyrac, Costa, Duarte and Rocha-Santos2020; Denta, Reference Denta2022; March et al., Reference March, Roberts and Fletcher2022; Aanesen et al., Reference Aanesen, Ahi, Abate, Khan, De Vries, Kite-Powell and Beaumont2024; Huang et al., Reference Huang, Xiao, Shan and Vedantam2024; Kirk et al., Reference Kirk, Popattanachai, Barnes and Van Der Marel2024; Vince et al., Reference Vince, Carney Almroth, De Miranda Grilli, Dwivedi, Stöfen-O’brien and Beyer2024) and corporate sustainability due diligence (Bonnitcha and McCorquodale, Reference Bonnitcha and Mccorquodale2017; Baltrunaite et al., Reference Baltrunaite, Canini, Chiarelli, Consigliere, Coppotelli, Fornasari, Loizzo, Mocetti, Muraca and Parrella2024; Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024; Butt and Kousar, Reference Butt and Kousar2024; Ciacchi, Reference Ciacchi2024; Dadush et al., Reference Dadush, Schönfelder and Streibelt2024; Enriques, Reference Enriques and Shapira2024; McCullagh, Reference Mccullagh2024; Mieszkowska, Reference Mieszkowska2024; Parlak De Oliveira Serra, Reference Parlak De Oliveira Serra2025; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025) have each generated substantial scientific and legal scholarship, limited analysis has examined how the CSDDD may apply specifically to plastics-related environmental harm across global value chains. Existing scholarship has largely examined plastics regulation and corporate sustainability due diligence as separate fields, leaving limited analysis of how the CSDDD may interact with the EU plastics acquis to address diffuse and cumulative forms of plastics-related environmental harm across global value chains.
This article addresses this gap by providing a doctrinal and governance-oriented assessment of the CSDDD’s potential contribution to plastics governance. Its novelty lies not in analysing the CSDDD or plastics regulation independently, but in systematically examining how the Directive’s due diligence obligations interact with existing EU plastics governance through a procedural environmental governance perspective. Particular attention is given to plastics-related harms characterised by diffuse causation, cumulative impacts and the involvement of multiple actors across global value chains. The article makes three principal contributions. First, it interprets whether and how plastic pollution may qualify as an “adverse environmental impact” within the meaning of the CSDDD, with reference to Annex Part II and relevant international instruments. Second, it analyses how the Directive’s risk-based due diligence obligations may apply to plastics-related risks across upstream and downstream stages of corporate chains of activities. Third, it evaluates the Directive’s enforcement architecture, including public supervision and civil liability, with particular attention to causation, proof and responsibility allocation in cases of diffuse and multi-source plastics-related environmental harm. The article addresses the following research question:
To what extent does the CSDDD establish binding due diligence obligations requiring companies to identify, prevent, and mitigate plastics-related adverse environmental impacts across their chains of activities?
To answer this question, the article adopts a procedural environmental governance perspective. Unlike traditional command-and-control regulation, which relies primarily on substantive prohibitions and performance standards (Sinclair, Reference Sinclair1997; Gunningham and Sinclair, Reference Gunningham, Sinclair and Drahos2017; Rajendra, 2026), procedural governance seeks to influence corporate behaviour through structured processes of risk identification, assessment, prevention, monitoring and accountability within organisational decision-making (Chiu and Donovan, Reference Chiu and Donovan2017; Bruner et al., Reference Bruner, Moore and Johnston2023; Ciacchi, Reference Ciacchi2024). From this perspective, the effectiveness of the CSDDD depends not primarily on the creation of new environmental rules but on its capacity to incorporate plastics-related environmental risks into corporate governance structures and decision-making processes. The Directive is therefore analysed not only as a legal instrument imposing due diligence obligations, but also as a governance mechanism capable of shaping corporate behaviour across global plastics value chains. In due diligence scholarship, legal obligations are commonly analysed in terms of their expected governance effects, including impacts on product design, supplier relationships, monitoring systems, escalation procedures and internal risk-management processes (Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024; Buhmann, Reference Buhmann2024; Ferrarini et al., Reference Ferrarini, Siri and Zhu2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025; Sjåfjell, Reference Sjåfjell2025). Building on this literature, the analysis is organised around five interrelated governance dimensions. These dimensions are not presented as a new theoretical model, but as an analytical framework synthesising core elements of established due diligence and environmental governance scholarship. They were selected because they reflect the principal stages through which due diligence obligations are expected to influence corporate behaviour – from identifying environmental risks, through preventing and mitigating those risks and exercising leverage across business relationships, to accountability and enforcement. Together, they provide a coherent framework for evaluating how legal obligations may translate into practical governance outcomes across corporate value chains (McCorquodale et al., Reference Mccorquodale, Smit, Neely and Brooks2017; Mackie, Reference Mackie2021; Shulman, Reference Shulman2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025).
-
• Risk identification: the extent to which plastics-related harms can be recognised as foreseeable adverse environmental impacts within corporate activities and value chains;
-
• Risk prevention and mitigation: the capacity of due diligence obligations to influence design, production, sourcing and operational decision-making;
-
• Leverage across value chains: the degree to which companies can influence upstream and downstream actors in addressing plastics-related risks;
-
• Accountability mechanisms: the role of monitoring, documentation, stakeholder engagement and grievance procedures in structuring corporate responsibility and
-
• Enforcement and liability: the effectiveness of supervisory and judicial mechanisms, including variations in national implementation, supervisory capacity and civil liability regimes, in translating procedural obligations into practical governance outcomes.
Together, these dimensions provide a framework for assessing whether the CSDDD can translate diffuse and cumulative plastics-related environmental risks into identifiable, manageable and enforceable corporate responsibilities.
Methodologically, the analysis draws on doctrinal legal research, examining the CSDDD’s provisions, legislative materials and related EU instruments. The Directive is situated within the broader EU plastics and CE framework to assess both the coherence and the practical governance implications of applying horizontal due diligence obligations to plastics-related environmental risks. In addition, the article employs illustrative lifecycle-based examples to demonstrate how due diligence obligations may operate in practice across different stages of plastics value chains. To make the analysis concrete, Section “Applying the CSDDD to plastic pollution across global value chains” includes brief lifecycle-based examples and an illustrative scenario of a potential Article 29 civil liability claim involving foreseeable plastic leakage.
Structure of the article
Section “Global and EU governance approaches to plastic pollution” outlines the global and EU regulatory landscape on plastic pollution, focusing on aspects most relevant to corporate accountability and lifecycle governance. Section “The corporate sustainability due diligence directive (CSDDD)” introduces the CSDDD and its core due diligence obligations. Section “Applying the CSDDD to plastic pollution across global value chains” applies the Directive’s risk-based and value-chain-oriented framework to plastics-related environmental impacts through the analytical dimensions outlined above. Particular attention is paid to the identification and management of plastics-related risks, the scope and limits of corporate influence across value chains, challenges of causation and liability associated with diffuse environmental harm and the practical implications of variations in national enforcement and supervision. The analysis also considers the relationship between the CSDDD and ongoing efforts to develop a global plastics treaty. Section “Conclusion” concludes with a critical assessment of the CSDDD’s potential and limitations as a complementary mechanism within evolving plastics governance, including the risks of procedural formalism, limited leverage over end-of-life harms and uneven implementation across Member States.
Global and EU governance approaches to plastic pollution
The persistence, transboundary nature and value chain complexity of plastic pollution challenge traditional environmental governance approaches, which have largely focused on isolated pollution events, waste management and end-of-pipe controls (Dauvergne, Reference Dauvergne2018; Etty et al., Reference Etty, Van Zeben, Carlarne, Duvic-Paoli, Huber and Huggins2022; Horton, Reference Horton2022). There is growing recognition that effective responses require lifecycle-oriented approaches capable of addressing environmental risks arising throughout the production, use and disposal of plastic materials and products (Kirchherr et al., Reference Kirchherr, Reike and Hekkert2017; Hahladakis and Iacovidou, Reference Hahladakis and Iacovidou2019; Nielsen et al., Reference Nielsen, Hasselbalch, Holmberg and Stripple2020; Simon et al., Reference Simon, Raubenheimer, Urho, Unger, Azoulay, Farrelly, Sousa, Van Asselt, Carlini, Sekomo, Schulte, Busch, Wienrich and Weiand2021). Rather than offering a comprehensive normative evaluation, this section identifies the key structural and doctrinal features shaping regulatory practice and scholarly debate, situating the CSDDD within the wider plastics governance framework. The evolution of plastics governance is particularly relevant to corporate accountability. Decisions concerning product design, material selection, sourcing, manufacturing, distribution and waste management influence plastics-related environmental outcomes throughout the lifecycle of plastic products (Nielsen et al., Reference Nielsen, Hasselbalch, Holmberg and Stripple2020; Bokor, Reference Bokor2025; Reins and Wijns, Reference Reins and Wijns2025). As a result, regulatory approaches increasingly seek to integrate environmental considerations into corporate decision-making and value chain management. Against this backdrop, the present section outlines the development of international and EU plastics governance and identifies the regulatory context within which the CSDDD operates.
Global plastics governance and the shift towards lifecycle responsibility
International regulation of plastic pollution has historically developed through a fragmented collection of environmental agreements addressing specific pollution pathways rather than plastics as a distinct lifecycle issue (Raubenheimer et al., Reference Raubenheimer, Oral and Mcilgorm2017; Carlini and Kleine, Reference Carlini and Kleine2018; Jia et al., Reference Jia, Evans and Linden2019; Simon et al., Reference Simon, Raubenheimer, Urho, Unger, Azoulay, Farrelly, Sousa, Van Asselt, Carlini, Sekomo, Schulte, Busch, Wienrich and Weiand2021; Barrowclough and Birkbeck, Reference Barrowclough and Birkbeck2022; UNEA, 2022; Brander et al., Reference Brander, Senathirajah, Fernandez, Weis, Kumar, Jahnke, Hartmann, Alava, Farrelly, Almroth, Groh, Syberg, Buerkert, Abeynayaka, Booth, Cousin, Herzke, Monclús, Morales-Caselles, Bonisoli-Alquati, Al-Jaibachi and Wagner2024). Relevant instruments include the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),Footnote 8 which requires states to protect and preserve the marine environment, and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78),Footnote 9 whose Annex V prohibits the discharge of plastics from ships. The Basel ConventionFootnote 10 further regulates transboundary movements of hazardous and certain plastic wastes, while the Stockholm ConventionFootnote 11 restricts persistent organic pollutants, including some substances used in plastic production and processing. Although these instruments contribute to the prevention and control of plastics-related environmental harm, they remain largely state-centred and issue-specific (Raubenheimer and McIlgorm, Reference Raubenheimer and Mcilgorm2018; Pramudianto, Reference Pramudianto2020; Chang and Saqib, Reference Chang and Saqib2025; Shi and Zhang, Reference Shi and Zhang2026). Most were not designed to address the full lifecycle of plastics, including upstream production decisions, product design, supply chain governance or diffuse releases of microplastics (Cowan and Tiller, Reference Cowan and Tiller2021; Zhou and Luo, Reference Zhou and Luo2024; Shi and Zhang, Reference Shi and Zhang2026). Their emphasis on state obligations and pollution control has therefore limited their capacity to address the cumulative and multi-actor character of plastics-related environmental risks (Chang and Saqib, Reference Chang and Saqib2025).
Recognition of these limitations has contributed to growing support for lifecycle-based approaches to plastics governance. This shift is reflected both in academic scholarship advocating lifecycle regulation and in the mandate adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) through Resolution 5/14 (2022), which launched negotiations towards a legally binding global instrument addressing plastic pollution across its lifecycle (EU, 2020; Simon et al., Reference Simon, Raubenheimer, Urho, Unger, Azoulay, Farrelly, Sousa, Van Asselt, Carlini, Sekomo, Schulte, Busch, Wienrich and Weiand2021; Barrowclough and Birkbeck, Reference Barrowclough and Birkbeck2022; UNEA, 2022; Wang and Praetorius, Reference Wang and Praetorius2022). The negotiating mandate adopts a lifecycle perspective encompassing plastic production, design, consumption, waste management and environmental release. Although negotiations remain ongoing, the treaty process reflects a broader shift in international environmental governance. Rather than focusing exclusively on waste management or marine pollution, current discussions increasingly emphasise prevention, transparency, traceability, chemical safety and responsibility across global value chains (Dauvergne, Reference Dauvergne2023; Landrigan et al., Reference Landrigan, Symeonides, Raps and Dunlop2023a; de Sousa, Reference De Sousa2024a; de Sousa, Reference De Sousa2024b). These developments have intensified debates regarding how responsibility for plastics-related risks should be allocated across value chains and translated into corporate practices (March et al., Reference March, Roberts and Fletcher2022; Maes et al., Reference Maes, Wienrich, Weiand and Cowan2023; Dauvergne et al., Reference Dauvergne, Allan, Beaudoin, Carney Almroth, Clapp, Cowan, De Groot, Farrelly, Grilli, Mah, Mendenhall, Paik, Ralston, Stoett, Stöfen-O’brien, Taggart, Tiller, Villarrubia-Gómez and Vince2025). Despite these developments, significant governance gaps remain because the diffuse and cumulative character of plastic pollution, coupled with complex transboundary supply chains and fragmented enforcement structures, continues to hinder the allocation of responsibility and the effective prevention of plastics-related environmental harm (Diana et al., Reference Diana, Vegh, Karasik, Bering, Llano, Pickle, Rittschof, Lau and Virdin2022b; Osuna-Laveaga et al., Reference Osuna-Laveaga, Ojeda-Castillo, Flores-Payán, Gutiérrez-Becerra and Moreno-Medrano2023; Tanaka, Reference Tanaka2023; Arora et al., Reference Arora, March, Nieminen, Shejuti and Walker2024; Cowger et al., Reference Cowger, Willis, Bullock, Conlon, Emmanuel, Erdle, Eriksen, Farrelly, Hardesty, Kerge, Li, Li, Liebman, Tangri, Thiel, Villarrubia-Gómez, Walker and Wang2024). These challenges have encouraged interest in complementary governance mechanisms capable of embedding environmental risk management within corporate decision-making processes (Scherer and Voegtlin, Reference Scherer and Voegtlin2020; Bruner et al., Reference Bruner, Moore and Johnston2023; Shabbir and Salman, Reference Shabbir and Salman2026). In this context, corporate due diligence has emerged as a potentially important tool for translating broader environmental objectives into operational practices across global value chains (Maljean-Dubois and Mayer, Reference Maljean-Dubois and Mayer2020; Buhmann and Feld, Reference Buhmann and Feld2024; Palea et al., Reference Palea, Migliavacca and Gordano2024; Schilling-Vacaflor and Gustafsson, Reference Schilling-Vacaflor and Gustafsson2024).
Against this evolving international backdrop, regional initiatives have assumed increasing importance. The EU, in particular, sought to operationalise lifecycle-oriented plastics governance through an extensive regulatory framework that combines CE objectives, product regulation, waste management measures and emerging forms of corporate accountability (Mallick et al., Reference Mallick, Salling, Pigosso and Mcaloone2024; Palea et al., Reference Palea, Migliavacca and Gordano2024; Sjåfjell, Reference Sjåfjell2025). This framework provides an important reference point for assessing how horizontal due diligence obligations under the CSDDD may interact with existing plastics regulations.
The EU’S circular economy and plastics governance framework
The EU has developed an extensive and increasingly integrated regulatory framework addressing plastic pollution. Rather than treating plastics solely as a waste management problem, EU policy increasingly situates plastics governance within broader objectives relating to resource efficiency, circularity, climate neutrality and sustainable production and consumption (EU, 2020; Bokor, Reference Bokor2024; Flick et al., Reference Flick, Khan, Bokor, Vries, Garrard, Abate and Beaumont2026). This approach is reflected in the European Green Deal (EGD),Footnote 12 and the new Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP),Footnote 13 which promote the transition from linear economic models towards systems based on waste prevention, reuse, recycling and sustainable resource use (EU, 2020; Beghetto et al., Reference Beghetto, Gatto, Samiolo, Scolaro, Brahimi, Facchin and Visco2023). Within this broader policy framework, the EU has adopted a range of legislative measures targeting different stages of the plastics lifecycle. At the product level, the SUPD addresses environmental impacts associated with selected high litter plastic products through consumption-reduction measures, market restrictions, labelling requirements and extended producer responsibility (EPR) obligations. The PPWR further strengthens lifecycle governance through requirements relating to packaging design, recyclability, waste reduction and recycled content (Mallick et al., Reference Mallick, Salling, Pigosso and Mcaloone2024; Nguyen et al., Reference Nguyen, Van Nguyen, Zhou, Duong and Ieromonachou2025).Footnote 14 In parallel, the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) establishes the overarching principles of EU waste policy, including waste prevention, reuse and recycling (Agovino et al., Reference Agovino, Cerciello, Musella and Garofalo2024).
Together, these instruments illustrate a gradual shift from downstream waste management towards upstream intervention. Increasing regulatory attention is directed towards product design, material composition and producer responsibility, reflecting the recognition that environmental impacts are often determined long before waste enters collection and treatment systems (Mederake, Reference Mederake2023; O’Halloran, Reference O’Halloran2024). The EU’s plastics strategy, therefore, increasingly seeks to influence the conditions under which plastics are produced, marketed, used and managed throughout their lifecycle (EC, 2018; Beghetto et al., Reference Beghetto, Gatto, Samiolo, Scolaro, Brahimi, Facchin and Visco2023).
Recent policy initiatives reinforce this direction. Measures aimed at strengthening markets for secondary raw materials, increasing recycled content, improving traceability and promoting circular business models seek to address structural barriers to plastics circularity (Kirchherr et al., Reference Kirchherr, Piscicelli, Bour, Kostense-Smit, Muller, Huibrechtse-Truijens and Hekkert2018; Hahladakis and Iacovidou, Reference Hahladakis and Iacovidou2019). In addition, transparency requirements introduced through the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)Footnote 15 and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS)Footnote 16 contribute to greater disclosure of environmental impacts and resource use, thereby supporting broader sustainability governance objectives (Simamindra and Rajaonarivo, Reference Simamindra and Rajaonarivo2024; Maas et al., Reference Maas, Zandee and Janssen Groesbeek2025; Mangiuc and Kagitci, Reference Mangiuc and Kagitci2025). Despite their breadth, however, existing EU plastics measures remain primarily sector-specific and product-oriented. Instruments such as the SUPD, PPWR and WFD establish substantive environmental requirements for particular products, materials or waste streams, while chemicals and product legislation address specific environmental and health risks through prescriptive regulatory standards.
Although these measures play an essential role in reducing plastics-related environmental harm, they generally do not require companies to implement integrated processes for identifying, assessing, prioritising and mitigating plastics-related environmental risks across their chains of activities. This limitation is also visible in project-based assessment regimes such as the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (EIA)Footnote 17 and the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (SEA).Footnote 18 While these frameworks address environmental effects within specific decision-making contexts and may consider cumulative impacts, they do not establish continuous corporate processes for managing plastics-related risks across value chains (Mackie, Reference Mackie2021; Nelson and Shirley, Reference Nelson and Shirley2023). The distinction between sector-specific regulation and horizontal governance mechanisms is therefore significant. While instruments such as the PPWR, the SUPD and the WFD regulate particular products, materials and waste streams through substantive obligations and performance requirements, horizontal instruments seek to influence how companies organise decision-making processes, manage risks across business relationships and value chains (Villiers, Reference Villiers2022; Boeve and de Waal, Reference Boeve and de Waal2024; EC, 2024; Eckert et al., Reference Eckert, Karassin and Steinebach2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025). Existing EU plastics legislation largely operates through the former approach.
This limitation is particularly relevant where environmental harms arise through complex global value chains extending beyond the territorial reach of EU product and waste legislation. Plastic pollution often emerges through cumulative activities involving multiple actors and jurisdictions, creating challenges that are not easily addressed through product-specific or waste-focused regulation. Addressing such risks, therefore, requires governance mechanisms capable of linking environmental objectives to corporate decision-making processes. Against this backdrop, the CSDDD introduces a distinct regulatory approach (Villiers, Reference Villiers2022; Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024; Ciacchi, Reference Ciacchi2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025). Rather than imposing new product requirements or environmental standards, it seeks to integrate environmental risk management into corporate governance systems and business relationships. By requiring companies to identify, prevent and mitigate actual or potential adverse environmental impacts across their chains of activities, the Directive potentially complements existing plastics legislation by addressing governance dimensions that sector-specific regulatory instruments do not fully capture (Lafarre, Reference Lafarre2023; Ventura, Reference Ventura2023; Buhmann and Feld, Reference Buhmann and Feld2024).
The corporate sustainability due diligence Directive (CSDDD)
As discussed in Chapter 2, existing EU plastics regulation primarily operates through sector-specific product, waste and environmental requirements. The CSDDD introduces a different regulatory logic. Rather than imposing substantive environmental standards for particular products, materials or waste streams, it establishes a horizontal due diligence framework designed to integrate environmental and human rights risk management into corporate governance systems and business relationships (Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025).Footnote 19 In doing so, it seeks to address governance dimensions that sector-specific regulation does not fully capture. The Directive is part of a broader shift from predominantly voluntary standards and disclosure-based sustainability regulation towards legally binding obligations concerning corporate conduct (EC, 2022). Earlier initiatives, including corporate sustainability reporting requirements and voluntary responsible business conduct frameworks, primarily sought to improve transparency and encourage responsible corporate behaviour (Koos, Reference Koos2024; Leite et al., Reference Leite, Koporcic and Markovic2025). By contrast, the CSDDD requires in-scope companies to establish processes for identifying, preventing, mitigating and addressing adverse environmental and human rights impacts connected to their operations, subsidiaries and chains of activities (Dempere et al., Reference Dempere, Udjo and Mattos2024; Mieszkowska, Reference Mieszkowska2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025). This process-oriented approach is particularly relevant for environmental harms characterised by cumulative effects, diffuse causation and value chain complexity. Plastic pollution frequently arises through decisions dispersed across multiple actors and jurisdictions throughout the plastics lifecycle (Nielsen et al., Reference Nielsen, Hasselbalch, Holmberg and Stripple2020; Stoett et al., Reference Stoett, Scrich, Elliff, Andrade, De Grilli and Turra2024).
Objectives, scope and regulatory logic
The primary objective of the CSDDD is to require the largest companies operating in or generating substantial turnover within the EU market to conduct risk-based sustainability due diligence to identify, prevent, mitigate and, where appropriate, address adverse human rights and environmental impacts throughout their chains of activities.Footnote 20 The Directive reflects the recognition that environmental and human rights harms increasingly arise through complex transnational economic relationships that cannot be effectively addressed through territorial regulation or voluntary corporate responsibility initiatives alone (EC, 2022; Buhmann, Reference Buhmann2023; OECD, 2023; Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024). The Directive establishes the first EU-wide framework mandating corporate sustainability due diligence across sectors and draws heavily upon the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (OECD, 2023) and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (United Nations [UN], 2011; Bonnitcha and McCorquodale, Reference Bonnitcha and Mccorquodale2017). Consistent with these instruments, the CSDDD does not impose strict liability for all harms occurring within a company’s chain of activities; instead, it establishes procedural obligations requiring companies to exercise appropriate due diligence in light of the nature, severity and likelihood of identified risks (Buhmann, Reference Buhmann2023; Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024; Felbermayr et al., Reference Felbermayr, Friesenbichler, Gerschberger, Klimek and Meyer2024). From a legal perspective, the CSDDD occupies a distinctive position at the intersection of corporate governance, environmental protection and human rights regulation. Rather than prescribing sector-specific technological or environmental standards, it structures the organisational processes through which companies identify, prioritise and manage adverse impacts (Kluiver, Reference Kluiver2023; Ciacchi, Reference Ciacchi2024; Koos, Reference Koos2024; Sjåfjell, Reference Sjåfjell2025). This procedural orientation is particularly relevant for environmental harms characterised by cumulative effects, multiple contributing actors and complex causal pathways, such as plastic pollution.
At the same time, the scope and operation of the Directive have been affected by subsequent legislative reforms. In 2025, the European Commission proposed the Omnibus I package, which introduced substantial amendments to the CSDDD relating to its scope, implementation timetable and certain enforcement mechanisms (EU, 2025b). The postponement of application dates was adopted through Directive (EU) 2025/794 (EU, 2025a), while further amendments were subsequently adopted through the First Omnibus Package on Sustainability in February 2026 (EU, 2026). As a result, the timetable for the phased application of the Directive has been postponed compared with the original 2024 framework. These reforms have generated significant debate regarding their implications for regulatory effectiveness, competitiveness and administrative burden (BHRC, 2025; IUCN, 2025; Nicolo et al., Reference Nicolo, Zampone, Sannino and Polcini2025; Riganti and Vernero, Reference Riganti and Vernero2026). Nevertheless, the reforms do not alter the Directive’s underlying governance logic, which remains centred on risk-based due diligence as a mechanism for identifying and managing adverse impacts across chains of activities.
The due diligence framework
The CSDDD conceptualises due diligence as a continuous, risk-based process integrated into corporate policies and risk management systems.Footnote 21 Its purpose is to structure how companies identify, prioritise and address adverse impacts arising throughout their chains of activities (Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025). The due diligence process begins with the identification and assessment of actual and potential adverse impacts linked to a company’s operations, subsidiaries and chains of activities.Footnote 22 This requires companies to gather relevant information, map business relationships and prioritise risks according to their severity and likelihood, where it is not feasible to address all identified impacts simultaneously (Ciacchi, Reference Ciacchi2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025). From a plastics governance perspective, this stage is particularly significant because it may increase visibility regarding plastics-related risks occurring at different stages of production, sourcing, manufacturing, distribution and waste management. Where adverse impacts are identified, companies must adopt appropriate measures to prevent potential harms and mitigate risks that cannot immediately be prevented. Such measures may include adapting business practices, modifying sourcing arrangements, establishing contractual expectations or investing in operational improvements (Koos, Reference Koos2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025).Footnote 23 The Directive explicitly recognises that companies operate within complex chains of activities and therefore differentiates obligations according to factors such as the degree of influence exercised by the company, the nature of the business relationship and the characteristics of the identified risk.Footnote 24 Where actual adverse impacts have occurred, companies are required to take appropriate action to bring such impacts to an end or minimise their extent and, where relevant, contribute to remediation.Footnote 25 Depending on the circumstances, remediation may include environmental restoration, compensation or other measures aimed at restoring affected persons or ecosystems as far as possible (McCullagh, Reference Mccullagh2024). The Directive further requires companies to establish notification and complaints mechanisms (Article 14), monitor the effectiveness of due diligence measures (Article 15) and communicate publicly regarding their due diligence processes (Article 16). Together, these obligations seek to enhance transparency, accountability and continuous improvement in risk-management practices. For environmental challenges such as plastic pollution, these mechanisms may contribute to improved traceability, information flows and oversight across complex value chains.
Enforcement, liability and governance implications
The effectiveness of the CSDDD is likely to depend not only on the existence of due diligence obligations but also on the effectiveness of the enforcement and accountability mechanisms through which those obligations are implemented. In this respect, the Directive combines public supervision with the possibility of civil liability under national law. Member States are required to designate supervisory authorities empowered to monitor compliance, request information, conduct investigations, order corrective measures and impose administrative sanctions (Ciacchi, Reference Ciacchi2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025).Footnote 26 These supervisory mechanisms reinforce the preventive orientation of the Directive by focusing not solely on environmental outcomes, but also on whether companies have established and implemented appropriate due diligence systems. The future role of civil liability remains the subject of considerable debate. The original CSDDD established a partially harmonised civil liability framework under Article 29. However, reforms introduced through the Omnibus I process reduce the level of harmonisation originally envisaged by leaving a greater role to national legal systems in determining the operation of civil liability (EU, 2025b; EU, 2026). Although key elements of the Omnibus reform package have now been adopted, uncertainty remains regarding the practical operation of the revised liability framework and its implications for corporate accountability and access to civil remedies (Gómez, Reference Gómez2026; Riganti and Vernero, Reference Riganti and Vernero2026). Nevertheless, compliance with due diligence obligations is likely to remain legally significant in judicial and administrative proceedings concerning environmental or human rights harms connected to corporate activities, even where the applicable civil liability rules derive primarily from national law. At the same time, establishing causation may prove particularly challenging where environmental damage results from diffuse, cumulative and multi-actor processes (Shulman, Reference Shulman2024; Sjåfjell, Reference Sjåfjell, Ricardo Garcia Anton, Lafarre, Rombouts and Verbruggen2026). In practice, such harms emerge through multi-actor interactions across different stages of production, use and waste management, making it difficult to attribute specific environmental damage to individual due diligence failures (da Costa et al., Reference Da Costa, Mouneyrac, Costa, Duarte and Rocha-Santos2020; Raubenheimer and Urho, Reference Raubenheimer and Urho2020; Barrowclough and Birkbeck, Reference Barrowclough and Birkbeck2022). Consequently, civil liability may play a more limited role as an enforcement mechanism in the context of plastics-related environmental harm (Shulman, Reference Shulman2024; Sjåfjell, Reference Sjåfjell, Ricardo Garcia Anton, Lafarre, Rombouts and Verbruggen2026).
Beyond enforcement, the Directive has broader implications for corporate governance. By requiring companies to integrate due diligence into internal policies, risk management systems and oversight structures, it seeks to embed sustainability considerations within ordinary business decision-making (Sjåfjell, Reference Sjåfjell2025). In doing so, the Directive moves beyond traditional environmental regulation by focusing not only on environmental outcomes but also on the organisational processes through which risks are identified and managed (Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024; Shulman, Reference Shulman2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025). These governance implications are particularly relevant in the context of plastic pollution. Because plastics-related harms frequently arise through cumulative decisions concerning product design, sourcing, manufacturing, distribution and end-of-life management, effective governance may depend as much on organisational processes and value chain oversight as on product-specific environmental standards. The CSDDD therefore provides a useful analytical framework for examining whether corporate due diligence can contribute to addressing governance gaps that persist within existing plastics regulation. This question provides the basis for the plastics-specific analysis in the following chapter.
Applying the CSDDD to plastic pollution across global value chains
Although the CSDDD does not explicitly regulate plastic pollution, its risk-based and value-chain-oriented framework provides a legally relevant structure through which plastics-related environmental harm may be addressed. Plastic pollution arises from cumulative and interconnected activities across entire material lifecycles, making it particularly suitable for assessment through the Directive’s concept of a chain of activities.Footnote 27 As outlined in Section “Contribution, research question and analytical framework”, this section applies a procedural environmental governance perspective to evaluate how due diligence obligations may contribute to risk identification, prevention and mitigation, leverage across value chains, accountability and enforcement. The analysis examines how the CSDDD may apply to plastics-related risks across different stages of the plastics lifecycle and how its due diligence obligations interact with existing EU plastics governance instruments. Particular attention is given to the extent to which the Directive can support the identification, prevention and management of plastics-related environmental risks across corporate chains of activities, including where such risks arise beyond the territorial reach of EU product and waste legislation.
Plastic pollution as a legally relevant adverse environmental impact under the CSDDD
For due diligence obligations to apply, plastics-related harm must qualify as an adverse environmental impact within the meaning of the Directive. From a risk identification perspective, this requires translating diffuse and cumulative forms of environmental degradation into legally recognisable impacts under the CSDDD. The CSDDD adopts a dual normative approach. First, Article 3(1)(b) links adverse environmental impacts to breaches of obligations contained in international environmental instruments listed in Annex Part II. Several of these instruments are directly relevant to plastics. The Basel Convention (UN, 1989), as amended by the 2019 plastic waste amendments, regulates the transboundary movement and disposal of certain plastic waste streamsFootnote 28; the Stockholm Convention restricts hazardous substances used in plastics and MARPOL Annex V prohibits plastic discharges into the marine environment (Maes et al., Reference Maes, Wienrich, Weiand and Cowan2023; Zhou and Luo, Reference Zhou and Luo2024; Chang and Saqib, Reference Chang and Saqib2025). Corporate conduct that contributes to unlawful plastic waste shipments, the release of hazardous plastic additives or the discharge of plastics into the marine environment may therefore constitute adverse environmental impacts under the Directive.
Second, Annex Part I, Section 1, points 15 and 16 recognise forms of environmental degradation that interfere with protected human rights. Plastic pollution may contribute to ecosystem degradation, contamination of soil and water resources, food chain exposure and microplastics-related health risks affecting rights to health, water, food, sanitation and a healthy environment (Leeman and Krul, Reference Leeman and Krul2015; Geueke et al., Reference Geueke, Groh and Muncke2018; Proshad et al., Reference Proshad, Kormoker, Islam, Haque, Rahman and Mithu2018; Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Verma, Shome, Sinha, Sinha, Jha, Kumar, Kumar, Shubham, Sharma and Vara Prasad2021; Bidashimwa et al., Reference Bidashimwa, Hoke, Huynh, Narkpitaks, Priyonugroho, Ha, Burns and Weissman2023; Adekanmbi et al., Reference Adekanmbi, Ani, Abatan, Izuka, Ninduwezuor-Ehiobu and Obaigbena2024; Brander et al., Reference Brander, Senathirajah, Fernandez, Weis, Kumar, Jahnke, Hartmann, Alava, Farrelly, Almroth, Groh, Syberg, Buerkert, Abeynayaka, Booth, Cousin, Herzke, Monclús, Morales-Caselles, Bonisoli-Alquati, Al-Jaibachi and Wagner2024; Villarrubia-Gómez et al., Reference Villarrubia-Gómez, Carney Almroth, Eriksen, Ryberg and Cornell2024). This integrated environmental–human rights approach is particularly significant given the diffuse, cumulative and long-term nature of plastics-related harm (Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Verma, Shome, Sinha, Sinha, Jha, Kumar, Kumar, Shubham, Sharma and Vara Prasad2021; Nayanathara Thathsarani Pilapitiya and Ratnayake, Reference Ratnayake2024; Stoett et al., Reference Stoett, Scrich, Elliff, Andrade, De Grilli and Turra2024).Footnote 29 Taken together, these provisions enable plastics-related harms to be recognised as legally relevant impacts even where environmental damage emerges gradually through cumulative activities distributed across multiple actors and jurisdictions. This classification is critical from a governance perspective, as it allows such risks to enter corporate due diligence systems and become subject to processes of identification, prioritisation, monitoring and mitigation.
Upstream due diligence obligations: Design, production and supply of plastics
Upstream activities encompass the design, extraction, sourcing, manufacture, transport and supply of raw materials, products and components.Footnote 30 In the plastics context, these stages are particularly important because they shape material composition, product performance, chemical content and downstream environmental outcomes. In this section, transport-related activities are analysed as part of upstream due diligence where they relate to the movement of raw materials and intermediate inputs, while transport associated with the distribution of final products is addressed separately in Section “Downstream due diligence obligations: Distribution, use and environmental impacts”. From a governance perspective, upstream due diligence plays a central role in risk prevention and mitigation, as it influences corporate decision-making and risk allocation before plastics become waste or environmental pollutants (Grabiel et al., Reference Grabiel, Gammage, Perry and Dixon2022; Apel et al., Reference Apel, Kümmerer, Sudheshwar, Nowack, Som, Colin, Walter, Breukelaar, Meeus, Ildefonso, Petrovykh, Elyahmadi, Huttunen-Saarivirta, Dierckx, Devic, Valsami-Jones, Brennan, Rocca, Scheper, Strömberg and Soeteman-Hernández2024; Brander et al., Reference Brander, Senathirajah, Fernandez, Weis, Kumar, Jahnke, Hartmann, Alava, Farrelly, Almroth, Groh, Syberg, Buerkert, Abeynayaka, Booth, Cousin, Herzke, Monclús, Morales-Caselles, Bonisoli-Alquati, Al-Jaibachi and Wagner2024). The Directive thus shifts regulatory attention upstream, embedding environmental considerations into the organisational processes that structure material flows across value chains (Bright, Reference Bright2020; Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025).
Product design and material selection
Product design represents a key point of leverage for both risk identification and prevention. Companies may be required to assess whether design features such as non-recyclable polymers, hazardous additives, excessive packaging or intentionally added microplastics generate foreseeable environmental impacts (Tencati et al., Reference Tencati, Pogutz, Moda, Brambilla and Cacia2016; Rumetshofer and Fischer, Reference Rumetshofer and Fischer2023).Footnote 31 For example, a multinational food producer relying on multilayer plastic packaging with limited recyclability may need to evaluate whether those design choices contribute to foreseeable waste management failures and environmental leakage. Where feasible alternatives exist, companies may be expected to integrate redesign options into internal risk management processes. In governance terms, these obligations encourage the alignment of product development with CE objectives by embedding environmental risk considerations directly into corporate decision-making structures (Reuter et al., Reference Reuter, Van Schaik, Gutzmer, Bartie and Abadías-Llamas2019; Cimpan et al., Reference Cimpan, Iacovidou, Rigamonti and Thoden Van Velzen2023).
Raw material extraction and polymer production
Upstream due diligence also extends to extraction and polymer production. Primary plastic production remains heavily dependent on fossil-based feedstocks, linking plastics to environmental degradation, greenhouse gas emissions and, in some contexts, adverse social and environmental impacts associated with extraction and refining activities (Johnston et al., Reference Johnston, Lim and Roh2019; Shamoon et al., Reference Shamoon, Haleem, Bahl, Javaid, Bala Garg, Chandmal Sharma and Garg2022; UNEA, 2023; Landrigan et al., Reference Landrigan, Raps, Cropper, Bald, Brunner, Canonizado, Charles, Chiles, Donohue and Enck2023b). From a risk identification and leverage perspective, companies may therefore be required to assess environmental risks associated with fossil-based feedstocks, polymer production and upstream supplier activities. Where companies maintain established relationships with suppliers, they may be required to exercise leverage through contractual arrangements, audits, monitoring systems or corrective action plans (OECD, 2023; Ciacchi, Reference Ciacchi2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025). These mechanisms illustrate how the CSDDD extends risk management beyond a company’s own operations by requiring companies to make appropriate use of available means of influence where environmental risks cannot be directly controlled. This is particularly significant in complex value chains where companies often lack direct control over suppliers, contractors, logistics providers and other business partners (OECD, 2023; Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024; de Jong et al., Reference De Jong, Baaij and Castermans2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025). In this respect, the Directive may complement existing EU plastics legislation by addressing environmental risks that arise outside the territorial scope of EU product and waste regulation yet still form part of plastics value chains. The effectiveness of plastics-related due diligence may therefore depend substantially on the extent to which companies can exercise meaningful leverage across value chain relationships (OECD, 2023; Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024; Sjåfjell, Reference Sjåfjell, Ricardo Garcia Anton, Lafarre, Rombouts and Verbruggen2026).
Chemical risks and manufacturing processes
Plastic production involves numerous chemical substances that may pose environmental and health risks (Proshad et al., Reference Proshad, Kormoker, Islam, Haque, Rahman and Mithu2018; Brander et al., Reference Brander, Senathirajah, Fernandez, Weis, Kumar, Jahnke, Hartmann, Alava, Farrelly, Almroth, Groh, Syberg, Buerkert, Abeynayaka, Booth, Cousin, Herzke, Monclús, Morales-Caselles, Bonisoli-Alquati, Al-Jaibachi and Wagner2024). From a risk identification and mitigation perspective, companies may be required to assess hazardous additives, manufacturing emissions and production-related waste. While the Directive does not prescribe technologies, it incentivises preventive and corrective measures implemented through internal governance tools such as monitoring systems, supplier requirements, documentation practices and oversight structures.Footnote 32 These mechanisms demonstrate how due diligence operates as a procedural complement to existing chemicals (EPAT Council, 2006) and product (EU, 2011, 2019b, 2022a, 2025c) legislation.
Upstream transportation and logistics
The transportation and handling of plastic pellets, polymers, feedstocks and other plastic inputs may introduce environmental risks through pellet loss, spillages and containment failures (Chapman, Reference Chapman2007; Folbert et al., Reference Folbert, Stoorvogel and Löhr2025). Because pellet loss is increasingly recognised as a significant source of primary microplastic pollution, foreseeable transport-related leakage may constitute an environmental risk that companies are expected to identify and address through due diligence processes (Galafassi et al., Reference Galafassi, Nizzetto and Volta2019; Cocozza et al., Reference Cocozza, Scarrica, RIZZO, Serranti, Staiano, Bonifazi and Anfuso2025). From a risk identification and monitoring perspective, companies may need to assess foreseeable leakage risks across transport chains. For example, repeated pellet losses during maritime transport or at port facilities may contribute significantly to microplastic pollution. Where such risks are identified, companies may be expected to implement containment measures, contractual obligations for logistics partners and monitoring systems (Koos, Reference Koos2024; Shulman, Reference Shulman2024; Anagnostopoulou, Reference Anagnostopoulou2025). These obligations illustrate how due diligence can influence day-to-day operational practices, translating environmental risk considerations into concrete behavioural changes within supply chains. By incorporating logistics-related leakage into upstream risk assessment, the Directive supports a lifecycle-oriented approach to plastics prevention that extends beyond manufacturing to transport and distribution stages (Kazancoglu et al., Reference Kazancoglu, Sagnak, Kumar Mangla and Kazancoglu2021; Zhang and Seuring, Reference Zhang and Seuring2024).
Downstream due diligence obligations: Distribution, use and environmental impacts
The scope of downstream responsibility remains a central interpretive issue. While the Directive primarily includes distribution, transport and storage of finished products within the chain of activities, independent product use and post-consumer waste management largely fall outside its mandatory scope.Footnote 33 Nevertheless, from a risk identification perspective, downstream stages remain critical because plastics-related harms often materialise after products are placed on the market. The Directive therefore addresses downstream risks indirectly by embedding them within corporate governance processes.
Product use and foreseeable environmental harm
The concept of foreseeability is central to downstream analysis. Companies may be required to assess environmental harm associated with normal or reasonably foreseeable product use, including recurrent and predictable patterns of misuse (UN, 2011; Mackie, Reference Mackie2021; OECD, 2023). These issues are also addressed in EU plastics legislation, particularly the SUPD, which targets consumption patterns and littering associated with specific products (Kiessling et al., Reference Kiessling, Hinzmann, Mederake, Dittmann, Brennecke, Böhm-Beck, Knickmeier and Thiel2023). Examples include microplastic release, product degradation or recurrent patterns of improper disposal (Mitrano and Wohlleben, Reference Mitrano and Wohlleben2020; Dey et al., Reference Dey, Dhumal, Sengupta, Kumar, Pramanik and Alam2021). For instance, producers of wet wipes or sanitary products may know that improper flushing occurs frequently despite labelling (Joksimovic et al., Reference Joksimovic, Khan and Orr2020; Ó Briain et al., Reference Ó Briain, Marques Mendes, Mccarron, Healy and Morrison2020; Hadley et al., Reference Hadley, Hickey, Lix, Sharma, Berretta and Navessin2023). In such cases, companies may be required to consider proportionate preventive measures such as redesign, clearer information or alternative materials (Maitre-Ekern and Dalhammar, Reference Maitre-Ekern and Dalhammar2019; Ajwani-Ramchandani et al., Reference Ajwani-Ramchandani, Figueira, Torres De Oliveira, Jha, Ramchandani and Schuricht2021; Shulman, Reference Shulman2024). These obligations illustrate how due diligence may extend upstream responsibility into the use phase through design and information strategies, rather than through direct regulation of consumer behaviour.
Waste management and environmental leakage
Although end-of-life treatment and waste management generally lie outside the Directive’s mandatory scope, foreseeable environmental leakage associated with product lifecycles remains relevant for risk assessment. This follows from the Directive’s risk-based approach to identifying and addressing adverse environmental impacts throughout chains of activities (OECD, 2023; Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025). Plastic leakage into terrestrial and marine environments reflects systemic weaknesses in production, consumption and waste-management systems and remains a central challenge addressed through EU waste, recycling and EPR frameworks (EU, 2008; EU, 2019b, 2025c). Companies may therefore need to identify high-risk contexts, including regions with inadequate waste management infrastructure or products that generate predictable microplastic emissions, such as tyre abrasion or artificial turf systems (Kole et al., Reference Kole, Löhr, Van Belleghem and Ragas2017; Bhattacharya et al., Reference Bhattacharya, Aziz, Karmaker and Bari2024; Sundan et al., Reference Sundan, Michelsen, Rasmussen, Aas and Bohne2025; Dauvergne, Reference Dauvergne2026). This logic also extends to products whose normal or intended use results in foreseeable environmental releases, where risks are incorporated in product design. In such circumstances, they may be expected to consider proportionate measures, including design modifications, material substitution, distribution strategies, improved information provision or other risk mitigation measures aimed at reducing foreseeable environmental harm (Mitrano and Wohlleben, Reference Mitrano and Wohlleben2020; James et al., Reference James, Ward, Hahn, Thorpe and Reddy2024; Schoenung et al., Reference Schoenung, Ogunseitan and Heine2025). In this respect, the Directive may capture forms of plastics-related pollution that are foreseeable by design without transforming due diligence obligations into product-specific prohibitions or strict liability for environmental harm (Mitrano and Wohlleben, Reference Mitrano and Wohlleben2020; Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024; Amberg and Mitrano, Reference Amberg and Mitrano2025). Rather than replacing existing waste and product regulation, the CSDDD may complement these frameworks by requiring companies to incorporate downstream environmental risks into corporate risk management and decision-making processes (Ferrarini et al., Reference Ferrarini, Siri and Zhu2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025). Although plastics-related harms raise significant questions of causation and attribution, these issues are examined further in Section “Enforcement, liability and remedies in plastics-related due diligence”. At this stage, it is sufficient to note that the CSDDD’s principal contribution lies in encouraging companies to identify, document and manage foreseeable environmental risks, thereby complementing existing waste and product legislation (OECD, 2023; Shulman, Reference Shulman2024; Dan and Tao, Reference Dan and Tao2026).
Interaction with extended producer responsibility
The CSDDD may reinforce EPR frameworks by embedding lifecycle-oriented risk management within corporate governance and value chain management systems. Although the Directive does not establish EPR obligations or alter the substantive responsibilities allocated under existing waste and product legislation (such as the WFD or the SUPD), it may complement these regimes by integrating traceability, recyclability, waste prevention and pollution risk considerations into broader due diligence processes (OECD, 2023; Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024; Pantazi, Reference Pantazi2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025). While EPR frameworks primarily allocate responsibilities relating to waste management, collection, recycling and cost recovery, the CSDDD focuses on the organisational processes through which companies identify, assess and manage environmental risks across their chains of activities. From an accountability perspective, this integration may strengthen corporate oversight, improve value chain visibility and align operational decision-making with broader regulatory objectives concerning circularity and pollution prevention (OECD, 2023; Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025). In this sense, the CSDDD contributes a procedural layer of governance that supports, rather than replaces or modifies, existing downstream accountability mechanisms established under EPR frameworks.
Enforcement, liability and remedies in plastics-related due diligence
The CSDDD establishes a hybrid enforcement model combining administrative supervision with the possibility of civil liability under national law (Ciacchi, Reference Ciacchi2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025). From an accountability and enforcement perspective, its practical effectiveness is likely to depend not only on the existence of formal due diligence obligations but also on variations in national implementation, supervisory capacity, sanctioning practices and domestic civil liability frameworks across Member States. While the Directive seeks to strengthen corporate responsibility for adverse environmental and human rights impacts, translating procedural obligations into effective governance outcomes will depend significantly on how these enforcement mechanisms operate in practice (Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024; Shulman, Reference Shulman2024).
Illustrative civil liability scenario
To illustrate how due diligence obligations may operate in practice, this analysis considers a plastics manufacturer that transports large quantities of plastic pellets through third-party logistics providers. Internal assessments repeatedly identify substantial pellet losses occurring during transport and handling, a well-documented pathway through which environmental contamination may occur (Galafassi et al., Reference Galafassi, Nizzetto and Volta2019; Tallec et al., Reference Tallec, Lacroix and Le Berre2024; Folbert et al., Reference Folbert, Stoorvogel and Löhr2025). Available mitigation measures, including containment systems, monitoring protocols, contractual controls and employee training, are technically feasible and proportionate to the identified risk (OECD, 2023; Grgurević et al., Reference Grgurević, Sanchez Varela, Slišković and Ukić Boljat2025). If the company fails to implement such measures despite clear evidence of foreseeable risks, and pellet leakage contributes to environmental damage in a coastal ecosystem, affected parties may seek compensation under applicable national civil liability rules, subject to the conditions established in national law.Footnote 34 In such a case, the central issue would not necessarily be whether the company directly caused every instance of pollution, but whether it failed to address foreseeable and preventable risks in accordance with its due diligence obligations within its chain of activities (Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025). While claimants would likely face significant difficulties in establishing causation in a diffuse pollution context, internal risk assessments, supplier audits, monitoring records and compliance documentation could become important evidentiary elements in assessing whether the company complied with its due diligence obligations (OECD, 2023; Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024). This example illustrates both the potential and the limitations of civil liability as a mechanism for addressing diffuse plastics-related environmental harm.
Causation, accountability and enforcement challenges
The diffuse and cumulative nature of plastic pollution creates significant evidentiary and causation challenges (Collins, Reference Collins2019; Maljean-Dubois and Mayer, Reference Maljean-Dubois and Mayer2020). Environmental harm frequently results from interconnected activities involving manufacturers, suppliers, logistics operators, consumers and waste management systems operating across multiple jurisdictions and over extended periods (Collins, Reference Collins2019; Maljean-Dubois and Mayer, Reference Maljean-Dubois and Mayer2020; UNEA, 2023). Consequently, establishing a causal link between a particular company’s due diligence failures and specific environmental damage – such as degradation in a marine ecosystem – may prove difficult in practice (Collins, Reference Collins2019; Shulman, Reference Shulman2024).
These difficulties may limit the effectiveness of civil liability as a primary regulatory tool for addressing plastics-related environmental harm, as such harm often results from a combination of factors rather than a single identifiable source (Michel et al., Reference Michel, Romano and Zannini2017; Maljean-Dubois and Mayer, Reference Maljean-Dubois and Mayer2020). Nevertheless, due diligence obligations generate documentation, monitoring systems, stakeholder engagement procedures, complaints mechanisms and traceability measures that may strengthen transparency and accountability over time (Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024, Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025). Even where liability claims are difficult to establish, these processes can contribute to governance outcomes by improving oversight, facilitating regulatory supervision, strengthening corporate accountability and supporting more informed judicial and administrative decision-making (Buhmann, Reference Buhmann2023; Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024).
From a procedural environmental governance perspective, the significance of the CSDDD extends beyond individual liability claims. By requiring companies to systematically identify, assess, document and address environmental risks, the Directive creates institutional mechanisms that can improve information flows, enhance value chain visibility and support more effective management of plastics-related environmental risks across complex transnational supply chains (Buhmann, Reference Buhmann2023; Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024).
The CSDDD and the emerging global plastics treaty
The emerging Global Plastics Treaty and the CSDDD address plastic pollution through distinct but potentially complementary regulatory approaches. The treaty negotiations focus primarily on substantive lifecycle controls, including measures relating to plastic production, chemical management, product design, waste management and environmental leakage (UNEA, 2022; O’Meara, Reference O’Meara2023; Brander et al., Reference Brander, Senathirajah, Fernandez, Weis, Kumar, Jahnke, Hartmann, Alava, Farrelly, Almroth, Groh, Syberg, Buerkert, Abeynayaka, Booth, Cousin, Herzke, Monclús, Morales-Caselles, Bonisoli-Alquati, Al-Jaibachi and Wagner2024). By contrast, the CSDDD establishes procedural obligations governing corporate conduct and value chain risk management. These frameworks may therefore operate in a complementary and mutually reinforcing manner. International treaty provisions may establish substantive environmental standards and policy objectives, while the CSDDD provides mechanisms through which companies identify, assess, monitor and address associated environmental risks throughout their chains of activities. At the same time, procedural due diligence cannot substitute for substantive environmental regulation. The Directive does not impose production limits, prohibit specific plastic materials, establish recycling targets or directly regulate waste-management systems. Accordingly, the CSDDD is best understood as a complementary procedural governance mechanism rather than as a standalone solution to plastic pollution (Buhmann, Reference Buhmann2023; Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025). In this respect, its principal contribution lies not in replacing existing plastics regulation, but in strengthening the organisational processes through which companies identify, prioritise and address plastics-related environmental risks across increasingly complex global value chains (Buhmann, Reference Buhmann2023; Apel et al., Reference Apel, Kümmerer, Sudheshwar, Nowack, Som, Colin, Walter, Breukelaar, Meeus, Ildefonso, Petrovykh, Elyahmadi, Huttunen-Saarivirta, Dierckx, Devic, Valsami-Jones, Brennan, Rocca, Scheper, Strömberg and Soeteman-Hernández2024; Bueno et al., Reference Bueno, Bernaz, Holly and Martin-Ortega2024; Sinnig and Zetzsche, Reference Sinnig and Zetzsche2025).
Conclusion
Plastic pollution represents a paradigmatic challenge for contemporary environmental governance: it is diffuse, cumulative, transboundary and deeply rooted in global value chains. While EU plastics regulation has developed an increasingly dense body of product-specific, waste and market-based instruments, these frameworks do not fully capture the structural role of corporate decision-making in generating plastics-related environmental risks. Against this background, this article has examined the extent to which the CSDDD may contribute – indirectly but meaningfully – to addressing plastics-related harms through its horizontal, risk-based due diligence framework. The analysis demonstrates that although the Directive does not explicitly regulate plastics, plastics-related harms can fall within its concept of adverse environmental impacts through its reliance on international environmental instruments and its integrated environmental-human rights approach. This interpretation enables diffuse and cumulative forms of plastic pollution to be translated into legally relevant risks within corporate due diligence systems. Using a five-dimensional analytical framework centred on risk identification, prevention, mitigation, accountability and enforcement, the article has shown how due diligence obligations may address plastics-related risks across the plastics lifecycle.
By distinguishing upstream and downstream stages, the analysis demonstrates how the CSDDD may influence corporate responses to plastics-related risks associated with product design, material selection, production processes, foreseeable environmental leakage and downstream risk contexts. While the Directive does not impose substantive design standards or technological requirements, it can support existing plastics governance by embedding environmental risk assessment and management processes within corporate decision-making. In doing so, it complements sectoral regulatory frameworks, including where plastics-related risks arise beyond the territorial scope of EU product and waste law. The enforcement analysis highlights both the potential and the limits of this approach. Administrative supervision and civil liability mechanisms may enhance accountability, but their effectiveness is constrained by the evidentiary and causation challenges inherent to diffuse environmental harm. At the same time, due diligence obligations generate documentation, monitoring systems, stakeholder engagement procedures and traceability mechanisms that can improve information flows, strengthen oversight and support more informed regulatory and judicial decision-making over time. In this respect, the significance of the CSDDD extends beyond individual liability claims. By requiring companies to systematically identify, assess, document and address environmental risks, the Directive functions as a procedural governance framework that structures how plastics-related harms are managed across increasingly complex global value chains.
Implications for science, policy and industry
Scientific implications
Effective application of plastics-related due diligence depends on the development of improved metrics, monitoring tools and leakage indicators. Scientific research on microplastic pathways, pollution hotspots, chemical additives and lifecycle impacts can play a critical role in informing corporate risk assessments and enhancing the accuracy and reliability of due diligence processes.
Policy implications
The CSDDD proceduralises the objectives set out in EU plastics and CE legislation. Policymakers may use due diligence frameworks to promote regulatory coherence, clarify supervisory expectations and develop plastics-specific guidance and indicators. The Directive may also inform the development of the emerging Global Plastics Treaty by illustrating how corporate-level governance mechanisms can complement state-based regulatory approaches and help operationalise environmental objectives within business organisations.
Industry implications
Companies face growing expectations to integrate plastics-related risks into core business decisions, including product design, material selection, supply chain governance and downstream information strategies. Firms that proactively adopt risk-based due diligence practices may strengthen resilience, reduce regulatory and reputational risks, and improve alignment with emerging CE markets.
Final reflections
Overall, the contribution of the CSDDD lies in its horizontal and procedural function: embedding plastics-related risk management within corporate governance structures operating across global value chains and thereby strengthening the operationalisation of existing environmental and CE objectives. Its effectiveness will depend on coherent supervisory practices, the development of plastics-specific guidance and judicial engagement with complex forms of environmental harm. At the same time, the Directive’s practical impact will continue to be shaped by the implementation of recent reforms and their interpretation in practice. While the Omnibus I reforms preserve the core architecture of corporate due diligence, changes relating to scope, enforcement and implementation timelines may influence the extent to which the CSDDD can address diffuse and systemic plastics-related risks in practice. More fundamentally, procedural due diligence cannot be understood as a substitute for substantive environmental regulation. The Directive cannot by itself impose production limits, regulate waste management systems, eliminate infrastructure deficiencies or prevent all forms of plastics-related harm. Its contribution is therefore necessarily complementary rather than transformative. Nevertheless, by integrating plastics-related environmental risks into the organisational processes through which companies identify, prioritise and address adverse impacts, the CSDDD represents a significant step towards strengthening corporate responsibility within the broader governance architecture of plastics sustainability.
Open peer review
To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/plc.2026.10059.
Data availability statement
No new data were created or analysed in this study.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the valuable guidance and ssupport received from supervisors. Their insights into EU sustainability law and corporate due diligence significantly strengthened the analytical depth of this work.
Author contribution
The author solely conceived, researched and wrote this article.
Funding statement
No external funding was received for this research.
Declaration of interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
AI statement
Portions of this manuscript were developed with assistance from AI tools (Microsoft Copilot/OpenAI technology) for tasks including language editing, rewriting for clarity and improving structure. All substantive ideas, interpretations, analyses and conclusions are the author’s own. The author reviewed, verified and is fully responsible for all content.
Open access
