International sustainability debate: Brundtland to deregulation

Over four decades the international sustainability debate has moved from definition to implementation, and from there to the burden of regulation. First came the question of what sustainable development is. Then came targets and treaties. Now the question is mainly how many rules Europe can afford without losing its competitive position. For companies this is not an abstract discussion. It determines which obligations remain, which fall away, and which standards become binding through the courts in any event.

The short answer

The concept of sustainable development comes from the 1987 Brundtland Report.
The 1992 Rio conference produced two treaties: the climate convention and the biodiversity convention.
2015 brought the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement.
Since 2024 the demand for simplification has dominated. The Omnibus I package entered into force in March 2026.
Soft law is not enforceable, but it colours open norms in legislation and in contracts. Do not underestimate it.

From Brundtland to Rio

In 1987 the World Commission on Environment and Development published the report Our Common Future, named after its chair, Gro Harlem Brundtland. It described sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own.

That formulation was not a rule of law. It did give a common language to a debate that had until then been fragmented.

In 1992 the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development followed in Rio de Janeiro. There the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity were opened for signature. Both are binding law. The Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 were adopted alongside them; those are not.

That distinction remains the most important distinction in this field of law.

2015: goals and a treaty

In September 2015 the member states of the United Nations adopted Agenda 2030, with seventeen Sustainable Development Goals. Those goals are addressed to states and are not enforceable in court. They have nevertheless come to shape the way companies design their policies and report on them.

December 2015 brought the Paris Agreement. That is a treaty. It obliges parties to draw up and update nationally determined contributions and to report. The temperature goal is framed as a collective objective, not as an obligation of result on each individual state.

It is precisely that construction that makes the Agreement legally interesting. It binds strictly in procedure and loosely in substance. On how it works through, read more under the international climate framework.

The turn towards simplification

Between 2019 and 2023 the European Union set in motion an unprecedented series of rules under the Green Deal. Reporting, supply chain due diligence, taxonomy, product rules and emissions trading followed one another in quick succession.

In September 2024 Mario Draghi’s report on European competitiveness appeared. The heart of the criticism was that regulatory burden, fragmentation and slow decision-making were leaving the Union behind. That report became the reference point for a new course.

That course took shape in the Omnibus I package. After negotiations between Parliament and Council, the directive was published at the end of February 2026 and entered into force in March 2026. Since then the reporting obligation under the CSRD applies to a considerably smaller group of companies. The threshold for application lies at an average of more than one thousand employees combined with net turnover above EUR 450 million. Taxonomy reporting has been lightened as well.

In practice this creates a division. A smaller group reports as a matter of law. A much larger group receives the questions all the same, through customers, banks and principals. See CSRD and ESG reporting.

Deregulation does not mean the absence of law

It is tempting to read simplification as relaxation across the board. That reading is wrong. In three areas the standard is in fact rising.

First, consumer law. From 27 September 2026 stricter rules against misleading sustainability claims apply under Directive (EU) 2024/825. Generic claims without substantiation will then be prohibited in principle, as will claims of climate neutrality resting solely on offsetting. See greenwashing and sustainability claims and consumer law.

Second, nature law. The European Nature Restoration Regulation of 2024 imposes active restoration obligations on Member States. See biodiversity.

Third, the case law. Courts fill in open norms with the help of international commitments, even where those commitments are not themselves binding.

The legal significance of soft law

Soft law covers declarations, guidelines, action plans and codes of conduct without direct binding force. Examples are the SDGs, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Soft law nevertheless has legal effect, along four lines.

Filling in open norms. Concepts such as societal due care and good governance are coloured in part by widely accepted standards.
Interpretation of treaties. Courts use non-binding texts when interpreting provisions that are binding.
Contractual commitment. As soon as you refer to a standard in an agreement, that standard becomes enforceable between the parties.
Claim risk. A public promise based on soft law may amount to a sustainability claim. If it is inaccurate, that is an unfair commercial practice.

A clear example is the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 23 July 2025 on the obligations of states in respect of climate change. That opinion is not binding. It does confirm that states are obliged to prevent serious harm to the environment, and it has since been cited in proceedings worldwide.

The same effect is visible in the Netherlands. On 12 November 2024 the Hague Court of Appeal ruled in the climate case against Shell. A company has a duty of care to reduce its CO2 emissions. The court rejected the 45 per cent reduction sought, because a percentage per individual company could not be sufficiently substantiated. The case is now before the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad). See climate jurisprudence.

What this means for your business

Development	What it means for you
Narrower scope of the CSRD	Less reporting of your own, more questions from the chain
Stricter claim rules from 27 September 2026	Record the substantiation for every statement in advance
Growing weight of soft law	Be cautious with references you cannot live up to
More litigation	Document your decision-making and your reasoning

Frequently asked questions

Are the SDGs legally binding?
No. They are political goals for states. They can become binding as soon as you refer to them in a contract or a public claim.

Does Omnibus I remove my sustainability reporting?
Possibly as a statutory duty. Your customers and financiers may nevertheless continue to ask for the same data under contract.

Which carries more weight: a treaty or European legislation?
In day-to-day practice, European law. It applies directly or through national legislation and is immediately enforceable.

Would you like to know which obligations still rest on your business after Omnibus I? Contact Law & More. We map your position and translate it into policy and contracts. Our offices in Eindhoven and Amsterdam work in Dutch and English.

Sustainability Law

Contacts

Address

De Zaale 11
5612 AJ Eindhoven
The Netherlands

International sustainability debate: Brundtland to deregulation