The Role of Businesses in Fighting Global Warming

Faced with a critical decade, businesses have an essential role to play in helping to address social and environmental challenges that are more than just a simple evolution, but a veritable upheaval: global warming, biodiversity crisis, ever-increasing social inequalities, a geopolitical context undergoing rapid reconfiguration in a climate of unprecedented uncertainty, ideological fragmentation of political thought in most countries, and more. ¹ Among these challenges, the climate crisis is one of the most crucial issues, calling into question the very conditions of habitability on Earth, as the International Court of Justice solemnly reiterated in its Advisory Opinion of July 23 on the obligations of States in relation to climate change. ² So what are the mechanisms that accelerate or, on the contrary, slow down the transition of companies, particularly the climate transition? What dynamics can be used to strengthen the momentum of companies in the face of these challenges?

The contribution of businesses to overcoming these challenges is all the more necessary as they reach unprecedented proportions. Many multinational companies operate in regions of the world where national legislation is inadequate, while value chains have become globalized, spanning several continents. Until now, technological transitions were initiated by the emergence of an innovation, prepared by one or more players, who eventually imposed it and rendered previous, less efficient techniques obsolete. Today, this is no longer the case: the driver of change is not the discovery of a new solution, but rather an exogenous imperative. It is by reaching planetary limits that we are collectively called upon to take action, even though not all the solutions already exist. The reflections presented here are based on the report produced by the Club des juristes, “L’entreprise engagée face aux défis du 21eme siècle” (The committed company facing the challenges of the 21st century), chaired by Isabelle Kocher de Leyritz. ³

In the 1970s, in line with Milton Friedman’s view that the function of a company is to maximize shareholder profit, agency theory made it possible to align the interests of managers with those of shareholders so that corporate decisions were guided solely by the pursuit of profit. The growing awareness since the 2000s of the major environmental and social challenges facing us has led us to “take corporate responsibility seriously” in adapting to these challenges. ⁴ In this vein, Kofi Annan launched an appeal at the 1999 Davos Economic Forum for a pact of shared values and principles between businesses and the United Nations in order to “give capitalism a human face,” an appeal that led to the creation of the Global Compact. Since then, this momentum has led to the deployment of legal regulations aimed at guiding companies to take into account the negative externalities of their activities on human rights and the environment. This movement first resulted in the introduction of the first forms of non-financial reporting, before evolving into more substantial obligations of vigilance.

Two approaches emerged from the work carried out as part of the Club des juristes report. On the one hand, it appeared necessary to rethink liability law so that it is no longer just a mechanism for punishing past behavior attributable to a single actor, but becomes a lever for engaging companies in favor of the future (1).

On the other hand, consideration was given to the legal regulations introduced since the 2000s, which were understood as contributing to the construction of what we call here a “law of commitment” that goes beyond previous forms of regulation based on the imposition of limits and prohibitions, which can be described, by contrast, as a “law of limits” (2). 

It is in light of these reflections that we analyze the worrying decline currently unfolding in the name of economic competitiveness, the European Commission’s new mantra, which is being used to justify the unraveling of the patiently woven regulatory fabric. The new European political majority that emerged from the parliamentary elections in the spring of 2024 was one of the main causes of this backlash, with populist parties consistently presenting environmental regulations as unfounded bureaucratic constraints. Secondly, the report “The future of European competitiveness – A competitiveness strategy for Europe,” coordinated by Mario Draghi in September 2024, brought the issue of simplification to the European Union’s table. Finally, the profound changes in the geopolitical environment with Donald Trump’s rise to power in the United States further reinforced the belief that European regulations, a major obstacle for businesses, needed to be challenged. This resulted in the European Commission presenting two omnibus directive proposals in February 2025, with the aim of delaying and reducing the content of the CSRD and CS3D directives. ⁵ Without going into detail here about provisions that have not yet been definitively adopted, the main point to note is that it tends to greatly reduce the scope of companies subject to such regulations and that it aims to lighten the resulting obligations. However, in light of the above considerations, it seems to us more necessary than ever to stay the course in the face of the social and environmental challenges of the^21stcentury (3).

I – The world has changed: rethinking responsibility as a commitment to the future

1 – Unprecedented challenges for businesses, particularly the climate challenge

Global warming is now rightly identified as the most serious risk facing humanity in the 21^st century. As United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres hammered home at the 27^th session of the Conference of the Parties, “It is the defining issue of our age. It is the central challenge of our century. […] The deadly impacts of climate change are here and now”. ⁶ For the International Court of Justice, it is nothing less than an “existential problem of global proportions, which endangers all forms of life and the very health of our planet”. ⁷  

The consensus that can be deduced from international climate standards (including the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, the Glasgow Pact, and the European Climate Law) and the most authoritative scientific reports (notably the IPCC reports) concludes that there is an urgent need to limit global warming to 1.5°C. The world’s highest court has also taken note of this, stating in its recent opinion on the obligations of States with regard to climate change that the objective of limiting warming to 1.5°C is “considered by all, on the basis of scientific data, to be the one to be pursued under the Paris Agreement”. ⁸

However, entire sectors of the economy are identified as problematic due to their emissions potential, while the remaining global carbon budget—i.e., the maximum volume of greenhouse gases that can still be released into the atmosphere without exceeding the 1.5°C warming target—is being depleted faster than expected. The remaining global carbon budget to meet the 1.5°C target was estimated at 510 GtCO₂ by the IPCC in 2022 ⁹ , but was revised downwards to 130 GtCO₂ at the beginning of the year ¹⁰ : at this rate, it is expected to be exhausted in the coming years. The risk of climate runaway with the reaching of tipping points has never been greater. ¹¹   Thus, as the years go by, the challenges to be met and the progress to be made by both public and private actors are only growing in proportion to the inadequacy of collective efforts. 

It should also be emphasized that the climate crisis is only the tip of the iceberg, because in the background, the exceeding of other planetary boundaries, as highlighted by the Resilience Center at Stockholm University, ¹² and the collapse of biodiversity are equally colossal challenges. The links between climate and biodiversity are becoming increasingly apparent, as evidenced by the 2021 joint report by the IPCC and IPBES, which warns against siloed analysis. ¹³

Thus, the multiple environmental crises pose unprecedented challenges for companies, which are not only negatively impacted in the exercise of their activities but are also called upon to overcome them. 

2 – The need to rethink civil liability

In theory, one could consider that the role and legal responsibility of a company is to ensure that it complies with the increasingly narrow limits set by the legislator and to conduct its activities within this framework. However, this concept, which could be described as historical, is no longer entirely satisfactory. Civil liability, as still defined today in Article 1240 of the Civil Code as “Any act whatsoever by a person that causes damage to another obliges the person at fault to repair it ,” reveals its limitations in a context of emerging risks that are unprecedented in terms of their scale, scope, and potentially irreversible nature. ¹⁴  

Firstly, the concept of accountability, which establishes the responsibility of a single actor in a clearly identified causal chain, is no longer relevant in a context where an entire system is at the root of the massive destabilization observed ¹⁵ . The scientific complexity of the issues and their systemic nature blur the line between actions and their impacts: beyond individual actions that cause identified damage, we are now faced with global damage resulting from the impacts of the activities of a multitude of actors.

Furthermore, from a collective point of view, it seems inappropriate to think in terms of retrospective compensation because the aim is to prevent the worst from happening: we are now faced with collective impacts that are literally irreparable, and we must try to prevent or mitigate their occurrence rather than imagine how to repair them. 

Finally, the complexity of the issues at stake and the constantly evolving understanding of these issues and how to respond to them make the regulatory exercise particularly difficult. The effort of the law, particularly environmental law, to set safe boundaries, limits that no one must exceed, set at levels such that if everyone respects them, the safety of the whole is assured, is confronted with the systemic nature of the issues, highlighted by the concept of planetary boundaries. These systemic issues are further complicated by scientific and technological uncertainties, which further complicates the choice of institutional responses. These uncertainties also help explain why environmental regulations have often been perceived as overly technical and siloed. It therefore seems illusory to think that legislators can define the necessary limits exhaustively and at the right speed. The law of limits must therefore be combined with a law of commitment.

Simply raising environmental constraints quickly enough to restore a system of limits that must be respected to ensure the protection of the collective is not enough, especially since the period we are living in is also characterized by a pressing need to come up with new solutions. It is as much a question of inventing a secure future as it is of putting an end to some of our current practices. The world therefore needs pioneers now more than ever. Corporate responsibility cannot therefore be seen solely as a responsibility for the past and calls for the emergence of a right to commitment for the future.

3 – Promoting responsibility as a commitment to the future: moving beyond the law of limits to the law of commitment

The development of a “right of commitment” now appears necessary to support the business movement and respond to global and societal challenges. Unlike the historical “right of limits,” the right of commitment places greater emphasis on the future and on the specific purpose that the company seeks to achieve, across all sectors of activity. Each economic actor must assess its position in light of the best possible evaluation of what is emerging for its sector, whether it is directly affected by the activities of its own factories or whether it generates activities among its suppliers or customers that will be called into question. Beyond a simple logic of greening, it is a question of deploying a strategic approach to what the activity in question will be in a sustainable world and the right speed of movement to achieve it.

From this perspective, responsibility, perceived as a commitment to the future, must not only contribute to supporting the company in this strategic vision, but also “reward” it for its efforts. Thus, the right to commitment, on the one hand, maintains a dimension of control by requiring the company to anticipate and prioritize the risks that its activity poses to the environment through the modernized concept of the duty of vigilance: this duty is, in a way, called upon to bring up the rear by gradually raising the minimum standards below which it is not possible to fall.  On the other hand, it reinforces the obligation to publish information in support of the emergence of the new representation of success, to facilitate the comparison of companies on cross-cutting issues and to highlight the most committed and resilient companies, thus encouraging each company to define and pursue its own transition mission. 

II – The virtues of a legal system that promotes corporate engagement

The more a company questions its model in light of ongoing developments and anticipates the necessary sacrifices and technological breakthroughs to be made, the more it strengthens its resilience in the face of future changes. Therefore, the legal system cannot limit itself to setting limits that companies must comply with; it must promote a representation of success that is favorable to committed companies and encourage them to go beyond the minimum requirements to shape the contours of a desirable future. This right to commitment is thus based both on the obligation of transparency arising from reporting (2.1) and on the substantial obligation arising from the duty of vigilance (2.2).

1 – The ability of reporting to influence how success is portrayed in favor of committed companies

Originally, the obligation of transparency took the form of an obligation to report on social and environmental issues: the aim was to make non-financial reporting equivalent to the financial reporting used by investors to make their investment decisions. Following in the footsteps of France, which had paved the way in 2001 by imposing a non-financial reporting obligation on listed companies, on October 22, 2014, the European Union adopted, ¹⁶ a directive aimed at harmonizing this type of requirement at the EU level. However, this first generation of reporting left companies a great deal of freedom in terms of the format of the data to be provided, focusing its requirements on the thematic areas of information to be covered.

It therefore became necessary to go further by improving the comparability of non-financial information provided by all companies and strengthening its reliability through more thorough monitoring. This was the aim of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) adopted in December 2022, ¹⁷ which significantly expanded the scope of companies subject to such reporting in order to make sustainability reporting, the new term adopted, the true counterpart of financial reporting. To this end, it standardized the information to be published by the ESRS (European Sustainability Reporting Standards) proposed by EFRAG and adopted by the European Commission in delegated acts, the first of which was published on July 30, 2023. 

This directive is revolutionizing reporting through four highly innovative features. Firstly, it definitively establishes that sustainability issues extend throughout the company’s supply chain beyond its legal scope, by examining both upstream (orders placed with suppliers) and downstream (customers’ use of the products and services sold to them). Second, it enshrines the principle of double materiality, breaking away from the American model: alongside financial materiality (the influence of these issues on the company’s business development and results), impact materiality (the impact of the company’s activity on sustainability issues) is also affirmed. Thirdly, it moves away from the sole focus on ESG by incorporating strategy, questioning companies not only on their greenhouse gas emissions, for example, but also on the proportion of their revenue that is considered “transition risk” and also on transition opportunities. Finally, fourthly, it focuses on the company’s dynamics by requiring it to publish a transition plan for its activities, the financial resources allocated to this plan, and those allocated to activities with a high transition risk.

Substantially challenged by the Omnibus proposal, the bureaucratic drift of the CSRD has been highlighted: the directive would have made reporting excessively complex with its multiple required information points. However, this somewhat simplistic interpretation overlooks the ambition of the text, which was to push companies to conduct a structured and demanding review of their impacts, strategies, and business models. It was not so much the requirements of the directive that undermined its effectiveness, but rather the refusal of certain companies to accept the challenge, faced for the first time with a requirement to assess their business practices, strategic choices, and societal role. The coordination between the various European regulations could certainly have been better thought out, and a longer implementation period would undoubtedly have facilitated the adoption of these new obligations. However, it would be simplistic to dismiss the complexity of the system as pure bureaucratic excess, when it was clearly intended to bring about change, which certain players ultimately preferred to circumvent rather than respond to.

While the European decisions are not yet known, ¹⁸ it is imperative that reporting reflects the company’s ability to become resilient, i.e., capable of adapting to the changes that lie ahead. On the one hand, in most sectors of activity, technologies will have to evolve and supply chains will have to become more circular in the face of resource scarcity. However, there are considerable differences between economic actors in terms of both their transition risks (the proportion of activities that will have to be transformed, slowed down, or discontinued as a result of the transition) and their ability to seize transition opportunities, which their reporting should reveal. On the other hand, when the entire system is at stake and resource extraction, production, consumption, and logistics methods must all evolve at the same time, each player must evolve in their own part of the game. Reporting should then reflect the speed at which the company is moving towards more virtuous practices in its own part of the game, i.e., the dynamics of the transition it is undertaking. 

2 – The ability of the duty of vigilance to encourage companies to better consider risks across the entire value chain

The emergence of legislation on the duty of vigilance represents a decisive innovation in business law. It illustrates in concrete terms what we have referred to as the emergence the law of commitment: a right that is no longer limited to setting boundaries or punishing breaches, but which seeks to structure the behavior of economic actors from a proactive perspective of responsibility. 

In this regard, the French law of March 27, 2017, ¹⁹ relating to the duty of vigilance of parent companies, is a pioneering piece of legislation in terms of protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, worker health and safety, and the environment. It arose from the realization that companies could no longer turn a blind eye to the conditions under which the products they sell are manufactured and services are provided: a need for accountability was emerging. Its provisions are innovative in two ways. On the one hand, they require companies not only to control their internal risks, but also to take into account the systemic effects of their activities on human rights and the environment—in other words, to structurally address planetary boundaries and minimum social standards throughout their value chain. Second, the law innovates through the flexibility of the duty of vigilance: it is an evolving standard of behavior that is designed to adapt over time to new social and environmental challenges—such as the growing problem of plastic or persistent pollutants.

This law was a real revolution for companies, which can no longer hide behind the global nature of their activities to ignore the risks in this area and must demonstrate a certain proactivity in preventing risks and mitigating serious harm, or face legal action to obtain a court order to bring their plan into compliance (Art. L. 225-102-1 C. com.) or face civil liability proceedings (Art. L. 225-102-2 C. com.). While the results of the first few years of the law’s application have been mixed, ²⁰ the legal framework for the first of the actions provided for by the law was recently clarified in the “La Poste” case: the Paris Court of Appeal, in a ruling dated June 19, 2025, ²¹ confirmed the importance of risk mapping, incidentally pushing companies to take advantage of the law and go beyond the logic of compliance. 

In line with French law, Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on corporate sustainability due diligence ²² (known as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive or CS3D), adopted in June 2024, aims to establish a common set of obligations at the EU level in order to end regulatory asymmetry between Member States and raise the level of protection of human rights and the environment by companies operating in the European market. Like the French law, the directive has a broad scope covering the entire “chain of activities” and, under Articles 8 and 9, requires an analysis of actual or potential negative impacts and a prioritization based on the severity and likelihood of risks. This approach thus requires companies to conduct a cross-cutting risk analysis, forcing them to adopt a sector-approach to identifying and prioritizing risks and potential violations, beyond the sole legal sphere of control. 

However, the directive has been the subject of intense debate in recent months ²³ . The so-called “Omnibus” package, presented by the Commission on February 26, 2025, aims to revise certain substantial elements of the directive, in particular the broad scope of the duty of vigilance, but also the requirement for the effective implementation of climate transition plans provided for in Article 22. The Council’s position ²⁴ goes even further in its regression. In a joint statement on August 21 on the framework agreement for reciprocal, fair, and balanced trade between the United States and the EU, the EU stated its commitment to making efforts to ensure that the CS3D and CSRD “do not impose excessive restrictions on transatlantic trade.” It also promised to “work to address US concerns regarding the imposition of due diligence requirements on companies from non-EU countries with high-quality relevant regulations” ²⁵ .

However, it should not be forgotten that, regardless of the outcome of the texts currently under discussion, the duty of vigilance incumbent on companies is not limited to the 2017 law. The Court of Cassation – the supreme court for civil and criminal cases in France –considers that companies informed of a scientifically substantiated risk are bound by a duty of vigilance. ²⁶ The French Constitutional Council also affirms, on the basis of Articles 1 and 2 of the Environmental Charter, that “everyone has a duty of care with regard to environmental damage that may result from their activities.” ²⁷ In a recent landmark ruling in the “Dieselgate” case, the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation went even further ²⁸ : it interpreted the articles of the Civil Code on which the claim was based in the light of Articles 1 and 2 of the Environmental Charter, and relied on the above-mentioned principle established by the Constitutional Council to rule that “delivering to a purchaser a motor vehicle equipped with a device” that was rigged to underestimate emissions harmful to the environment constitutes a serious breach by the seller of its obligation to deliver goods in conformity with the contract, justifying the termination of the contract. In other words, as part of its obligation to deliver goods in conformity with the contract, the seller is required to exercise vigilance regarding environmental damage that may result from the sale of its goods, an obligation that falls within the scope of the contract and may form the basis for a request for termination of the contract. The broad scope of the obligation of vigilance in environmental matters is thus clearly established. ²⁹

In this context, and although the Green Deal is increasingly under threat, it is all the more important for companies to stay the course. 

III – Staying the course in a strained geopolitical context

In an increasingly ideological political context, there are strong reasons for companies to stay the course, which can be achieved through the strength of leadership.

1 – Strong reasons to stay the course

On the one hand, from a general perspective, it appears that many countries are moving forward with their transition, even if the United States is going against the grain. In this regard, recent studies show that China is engaged in a profound energy revolution that has enabled it to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in a global context of increase. It has also just introduced a reporting mechanism for its companies based on the concept of double materiality.

Furthermore, the claim that European regulations distort competition for European companies rings hollow, given that the European Union has finally had the courage to impose its regulations on foreign companies operating on its territory, following the example of the United States, which has long practiced the extraterritorial application of its laws, a practice that has been widely criticized. Both the CSRD and CS3D directives were to apply to foreign companies with significant turnover on European soil, while the carbon border adjustment mechanism is currently being consolidated.

Finally, these regulatory requirements contribute to the security of the economic system as a whole by forcing companies to develop a better strategic vision: a majority of companies appreciate that the implementation of the CSRD has enabled them to strengthen their strategic vision and better integrate risks, and that it offers a guarantee of transparency and comparability of corporate sustainability reports. ³⁰ In the same vein, the European Central Bank warns against lowering standards, emphasizing that the financial system needs high-quality and sufficient climate data from companies. ³¹ It is therefore the strength of leadership that enables us to stay the course.

2 – The strength of leadership to stay the course

In this highly unstable political context, companies are adopting contrasting positions. Among the companies that have produced their first sustainability report under the CSRD, a number have praised the virtues of the exercise and do not intend to back down. However, the move to relax standards initiated by the European Commission is also seen as likely to slow down team involvement and deprioritize ESG issues. ³² In this context, the transformation of companies ultimately rests heavily on their shoulders and on the leadership of their executives. 

As the report “The committed company facing the challenges of the 21^st century” highlights, the leadership of executives and boards of directors is the cornerstone of committed companies’ transition” ³³ . In a context of constant trade-offs between conflicting demands, the board of directors becomes the link where the company’s convictions crystallize, convictions that will underpin all the most important decisions, particularly those relating to strategy and investment. These convictions will be embodied in three areas of transition: defining the company’s purpose based on its raison d’être; the risks and opportunities of transition, including the sacrifices it must make; and finally, how it should approach value sharing. 

Beyond all these considerations, what ultimately emerges from the heated debates on the subject in a highly uncertain geopolitical context under American influence is an ideological opposition. Does Europe still want to offer a development model based on respect for the environment and the preservation of human rights, or does it intend to bow to the diktat of Donald Trump, who categorically rejects these regulations, which in his view should not apply to American companies? Let us hope that the convictions of the most committed companies do not waver in the face of this temporary backlash.

1. The analyses and positions expressed below are solely those of the author.
2. ICJ, Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States with Respect to Climate Change, July 23, 2025.
3. “L’entreprise engagée face aux défis du XXI° siècle” (Committed companies facing the challenges of the 21st century), I. Kocher de Leyritz, B. Parance and A. Stévignon, Le Club des juristes, November 2024.
4. A. Supiot and M. Delmas-Marty (eds.), Taking Responsibility Seriously, PUF, 2015
5. COM(2025)80 and COM(2025)81
6. A. Guterres, “COP 27 Opening Address,” Nov. 7, 2022. Original quote (free translation): “It is the defining issue of our age. It is the central challenge of our century. […] The deadly impacts of climate change are here and now.”
7.  ICJ, Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in Relation to Climate Change, July 23, 2025.
8. ICJ, Op. cit., §224
9. IPCC, AR6, WGIII, “Mitigation of Climate Change,” Summary for Policymakers, Apr. 2022, p.18, Table SPM.2, “Key characteristics of the modelled global emissions pathways.”
10. Indicators of Global Climate Change, Key indicators of global climate change 2024.
11. McKay, A. et al. (2022), “Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points,” Science, Vol. 377/6611, p. 1. See also: OECD, “Climate Tipping Points: Insights for Effective Policy Action,” 2022, pp. 8 and 9.
12. In 2009, the Resilience Center at Stockholm University identified nine planetary boundaries that must not be exceeded in order to maintain life on Earth without risk, in a framework that was updated in 2023. Scientists have established that six of the nine planetary boundaries have now been exceeded: climate change, biosphere integrity, disruption of nitrogen and phosphorus biogeochemical cycles, land use change, freshwater use, and the introduction of new entities.
13. IPCC and IPBES, Biodiversity and Climate Change, 2021
14. See the triple mutation of risks described by J. Rochfeld, Les grandes notions du droit privé, Notion 8, La responsabilité, Puf, 3^rd ed. 2023.
15. F. Vallaeys, “Responsabilité sociale, gouvernance et soft law : trois définitions philosophiques à usage des ‘forces imaginantes’ de la régulation hybride”, in K. Martin-Chenut, R. de Quénaudon (dir.), Développement durable : mutations ou métamorphoses de la responsabilité ?, ed. A. Pedone, 2016, p. 138.
16. Directive (EU) 2014/95 of October 22, 2014, known as the “NFRD” (Non-Financial Reporting Directive)
17. Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of December 14, 2022, known as the “CSRD” (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive)
18. On July 31, 2025, EFRAG published a simplified set of reporting standards (“Exposure Drafts (ED) of the Amended ESRS”), reducing data points by 57%
19.  Law No. 2017-399 of March 27, 2017 on the duty of vigilance of parent companies.
20. See the Duty of vigilance Radar updated in October 2024
21. CA Paris, Division 5-Ch. 12, June 17, 2025, La Poste, RG No. 24/05193. See also TJ de Paris, December 5, 2023, La Poste, RG No. 21/15827.
22. Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 13, 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence.
23. E. Pataut, “Omnibus?”, RTD eur., 2025, p. 5; D. Bureau, “In praise of negligence?”, JCP G No. 22, act. 654; Th. Duchesne, “Omnibus package: let’s run away!”, BJB No. 4, p. 33.
24. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/06/23/simplification-council-agrees-position-on-sustainability-reporting-and-due-diligence-requirements-to-boost-eu-competitiveness/
25. https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/news/joint-statement-united-states-european-union-framework-agreement-reciprocal-fair-and-balanced-trade-2025-08-21_en
26. Cass. 1^re civ., 7 mars 2006, n° 04-16.180, Bull. civ. I, n° 143
27. Cons. const., 8 avr. 2011, n° 2011-116 QPC ; Cons. const., 10 nov. 2017, n° 2017-672 QPC (free translation)
28. Civ. 1^re, 24 sept. 2025, pourvoi n° V 23-23.869, « Affaire Dieselgate »
29. Sur ce point et en amont de la décision du 24 septembre 2025, v.  G. Leray, « La prise en considération des décisions du Conseil constitutionnel par le juge judiciaire en matière environnementale », JCP E, n° 01, 2025, 1006
30. In May 2025, a survey conducted by the #WeAreEurope collective, in partnership with HEC Paris, revealed that 61% of European companies are in favor of the current CSRD, while 51% reject the Omnibus reform project, thus contradicting the prevailing discourse on the impact of this regulation
31. Letter from Christine Lagarde, President of the ECB, to the European Parliament, August 15, 2025.
32. See, in particular, the study conducted by Deloitte, ANDRH, and ORSE, “CSRD and beyond: one year on, what is the outcome?”, July 2025: the survey was conducted among more than 80 companies and found that 54% of companies believe that the omnibus has a limited impact following the efforts already made, but 28% of organizations believe that these changes may slow down team involvement and deprioritize ESG issues.
33. See the second part of the report, pp. 57-90.