“Stop-the-Clock” on CSRD and CSDDD: A Breather, Not a Backslide


What the EU's legislative delay means for sustainability reporting, market integrity, and strategic preparation

In a move closely watched by global regulators, corporates, and investors alike, the European Council has officially endorsed a “Stop-the-Clock” mechanism—delaying key deadlines under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). The decision, while practical, has sparked debate: is this a necessary pause to improve implementation, or a dangerous precedent that risks undermining regulatory momentum? This article dives into what’s changing, Why It Matters, and how financial institutions and corporates should use this regulatory window.



The Legislative Pivot: What’s Delayed and Why Adopted as part of the broader “Omnibus Directive,” the EU’s decision pushes back the CSRD’s reporting deadlines for non-listed companies by two years—from financial year 2026 to 2028—and delays the transposition deadline for the CSDDD by one year.



Key changes include:




  1. CSRD: The third wave of reporting entities (non-listed SMEs and subsidiaries of non-EU parent companies) now face a 2028 reporting deadline instead of 2026.
  2. CSDDD: Member States now have until 2026 (instead of 2025) to transpose the due diligence directive, which mandates supply chain environmental and human rights assessments.

The rationale, according to the European Commission and Council, is to “enhance legal certainty” and ensure that companies, particularly smaller entities, are not overwhelmed by overlapping compliance burdens amid inflationary and economic pressures.



A Strategic Pause, Not an Abandonment Critically, the delay does not reflect a retreat from the EU’s sustainability ambitions. Rather, it’s a recognition of the complexities involved in aligning corporate reporting systems, assurance mechanisms, and governance structures with the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS).



The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) has been given an explicit mandate to simplify the ESRS for SMEs and improve interoperability with global standards like ISSB and GRI. Simplified templates, sectoral guidance, and clearer thresholds are expected to be developed by Q4 2025.



What It Means for Business Leaders For companies in scope—particularly multinational corporations and financial institutions—the delay should not be mistaken as a reason to defer sustainability efforts. Key preparatory steps still need to advance:




  1. Double Materiality Assessments: Begin or complete assessments that identify both financial and impact materiality.
  2. Gap Analysis: Evaluate current ESG data systems against ESRS requirements.
  3. Governance Upgrades: Enhance board oversight of sustainability risks and disclosures.
  4. Internal Controls: Build assurance pathways for third-party verification, which becomes mandatory under CSRD.

For subsidiaries of non-EU entities, this delay also provides more time to align global disclosures with EU expectations.



Investor Expectations Remain High Financial institutions, particularly asset managers and institutional investors, are unlikely to lower their demands for robust ESG data. Many already rely on CSRD-aligned metrics for product labeling under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) and Article 8/9 fund classification.



The delay therefore introduces a gap between regulatory expectations and market demand, putting pressure on companies to voluntarily align or face exclusion from ESG-focused capital.



As noted by one of the European Sustainable Investment firms: “The pause in formal obligations should not slow down voluntary adoption. In Fact, firms that move now will be better positioned competitively when the full regime comes online.” Legal & Compliance Implications From a legal perspective, the delay offers a critical compliance planning window. Legal teams are advised to:




  1. Map regulatory timelines across EU jurisdictions.
  2. Update ESG-related contractual clauses with suppliers and third parties.
  3. Reassess risk registers to reflect evolving due diligence obligations under CSDDD.

Law firms are also urging companies to document their transition plans even in the absence of formal mandates, to demonstrate good faith and reduce litigation risks.



Global Alignment & Policy Coherence This delay also plays into broader dynamics around international standard-setting. With the ISSB’s climate and general disclosure standards (IFRS S1 & S2) going into effect in many jurisdictions, and the SEC’s climate disclosure rule still facing legal challenges, the EU’s move signals pragmatism rather than divergence.



The expectation is that CSRD, ISSB, and GRI frameworks will continue to co-evolve toward a globally coherent sustainability reporting ecosystem. The EU’s simplification process is a key opportunity to reduce fragmentation.



Final Word: Use the Time Wisely For sustainability professionals and financial leaders, this extension should be viewed not as a delay in duty—but as a strategic grace period.




  1. Early adopters can shape stakeholder expectations.
  2. Asset managers can push for harmonized disclosures.
  3. SMEs can build reporting capacity incrementally.

The regulatory bar has not been lowered—only the timeline has shifted. The real test will be how this time is used.



Subscribe To NewsLetter



Most Read