Living in a society means we all agree to certain limitations on personal freedoms, particularly those that could harm others or their property. It is entirely justified that we are prohibited from causing harm to others through environmental damage, for example, by poisoning drinking water or destroying habitats of protected species.

We also hold the same expectations for the state and, through legislation, for the companies operating within it. Unfortunately, it is widely known that money drives everything, and what is prohibited for Võnnu resident Jüri is often allowed for a large international corporation with a registered address in the Cayman Islands.

On May 24, the Council of the European Union approved the Corporate Sustainability and Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which aims to ensure at least minimal corporate responsibility by obliging companies to identify, prevent, mitigate and eliminate environmental harm and human rights violations throughout their value chains.

Throughout the years of political negotiations, Estonia consistently advocated for watering down the directive to avoid burdening businesses with excessive and unclear obligations. As a result, the adopted directive ultimately applies to only a handful of Estonian companies, and business freedom continues to take precedence over many other fundamental rights and freedoms.

Under the Paris Agreement, countries have committed to significantly limiting greenhouse gas emissions, and the obligations and restrictions placed on individuals continue to grow. Estonia's process of drafting a climate-resilient economy law also shows that we understand the harmful effects of human-induced greenhouse gases and are trying to use regulations to achieve emission reductions.

At the same time, 157 international corporations are responsible for approximately 60 percent of global industrial emissions, operating with far greater freedom to harm both the environment and people. The goal of the Corporate Sustainability and Due Diligence Directive process was to ensure that companies also actively contribute to sustainable development, thus promoting a more just and environmentally conscious global economy.

The opposition from Estonian government officials to corporate due diligence has been concerning. This resistance is directed against very fundamental and yet entirely minimal reforms aimed at protecting human rights and the environment from short-term business interests.

Estonian officials have justified their stance by citing the vague nature of the obligations imposed by the directive, the increased administrative burden on companies and the risk of legal disputes. This position reflects a shortsighted view that business interests are more important than the long-term benefits of strong environmental and human rights protections. However, addressing climate and environmental crises and reducing social inequality are key to ensuring both security and sustainability.

Even though the vast majority of Estonian companies have a relatively small impact on a global scale, the opposition from Estonia and several other EU member states to a robust directive ultimately resulted in the implementation of very weak rules and obligations for major corporations with significant influence. These regulations are far from sufficient to ensure that businesses make a fair contribution to mitigating climate and environmental crises.

Regardless of whether a company is large or small, all business activities should operate within the boundaries of nature, respect human rights and minimize environmental damage, both domestically and abroad. By opposing the directive, Estonia not only hindered progress toward a more sustainable business landscape but also undermined its own and the EU's credibility and leadership in promoting responsible business practices.

In light of the renewed debate on phosphate mining and the planned concession process, it is particularly important to ensure that the large corporations we may invite to mine and cause environmental harm here adhere to the law, cause minimal damage, pay fair wages to workers and be held accountable for any violations. These are precisely the safeguards that a robust due diligence directive would have ensured.

The actions of companies must align with what we expect from ourselves, our fellow citizens and the state. In an era of intensifying droughts, more extensive floods and more frequent storms, our expectations cannot be driven by corporate profit interests. Sticking to the paradigm of economic growth, without limiting the disproportionately large environmental impact of (large) corporations, makes it impossible to ensure a livable planet even by the time of our own retirement, let alone for future generations.

Responsible business practices are possible, as demonstrated by several Estonian companies that operate in a circular economy, plan for a transition to climate neutrality and take responsibility for the impact of their operations.

It is time for the Estonian government to understand that Earth's limits are not an abstract concept, but a real threat to our lives and well-being. Comfortable compromises are not enough; it's time for difficult decisions that will have a real impact.

For large corporations concerned about the increase in administrative burdens and restrictions on business freedom, we recommend considering the benefits of transparent supply chains, a positive social credit score and being prepared with crisis plans for when climate change begins to directly affect business operations and profits.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!