From Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine to the civil war in Sudan and the genocide in Gaza, ongoing armed conflicts have renewed attention to the role of corporations operating in conflict-affected and high-risk areas (CAHRAs). Companies sourcing natural resources, providing services or maintaining commercial relationships in these contexts may contribute to conflict, human rights violations and environmental harms.
Corporate due diligence has become a central framework through which companies are expected to identify, prevent, mitigate and address their impacts. In conflict settings, where risks are often more severe, this process is referred to as heightened due diligence.
The EU has translated international voluntary standards into binding legislation through instruments such as the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), the Conflict Minerals Regulation and the Batteries Regulation. But one question has received little attention: how much of heightened due diligence has actually made it into EU law?
Not simply “more” due diligence
Heightened due diligence emerged from later interpretations of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the principle of proportionality: due diligence must scale to both a company's characteristics and the severity of potential impacts. The UNDP's 2022 and 2025 guidance has since clarified what heightened means in practice.
Contrary to what its name may suggest, heightened due diligence does not simply require companies to do more due diligence. Rather, it requires them to carry out due diligence through a conflict-sensitive lens. For example, consider a company sourcing minerals from a country experiencing armed conflict compared with one operating in a stable context. In both cases, companies may have to identify and address environmental and labour risks. In a conflict setting, however, a different layer of questions arises. Could purchasing decisions contribute to financing armed groups? Which stakeholders should be consulted, and how can engagement take place safely? Should the company remain engaged to preserve livelihoods or disengage to avoid contributing to harm and possibly becoming linked to violations of international law?
There are rarely straightforward answers, and companies must navigate difficult trade-offs. In practice, heightened due diligence requires companies to conduct a conflict analysis: understanding the conflict’s root causes, key actors and how their own activities and relationships may interact with conflict dynamics. Thus, companies must identify, prioritise and mitigate not only human rights and environmental risks but also risks of contributing to or exacerbating conflict. Meaningful stakeholder engagement, the exercise of leverage and responsible disengagement strategies are central elements of this process.
Translating heightened due diligence into EU law
The EU has taken important steps towards translating the UNGPs and the international framework into binding obligations, most notably through the CSDDD. Nevertheless, the Directive has paid little attention to conflict. It acknowledges that companies operating in CAHRAs may need to exercise heightened due diligence and refers to international guidance in its recitals. Yet these references are not translated into obligations in the operative provisions. Instead, its practical content is largely left to future Commission guidance and possible sector-specific rules.
In this sense, it is in the mining sector that the EU has sought to address conflict-related due diligence, particularly through the 2017 Conflict Minerals Regulation. Based on the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas, the Regulation aims to prevent mineral trade from contributing to the financing of armed groups and serious human rights abuses. To do so, it requires EU importers of four minerals—tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold (3TG)—to establish management systems, assess supply-chain risks, implement risk-management measures, engage with suppliers, undergo audits and report on their due diligence. To help companies identify where heightened attention may be necessary, the EU has also developed an indicative and non-exhaustive list of CAHRAs.
The Regulation places significant emphasis on improving transparency and traceability in mineral supply chains. However, these objectives have proven difficult to achieve. The Commission’s own 2024 effectiveness review found that EU importers still face difficulties in establishing adequate and complete supply-chain traceability systems and disclosing key information, such as the mine of origin of minerals. This has also meant that heightened due diligence has not been fully applied.
Beyond its limited effectiveness, the Regulation has faced criticism for its narrow scope, weak sanctions and reliance on third-party audits and industry-led schemes. However, an additional gap remains: although the Regulation makes the OECD Guidance legally binding for EU importers, it does not fully incorporate the conflict-sensitive understanding of heightened due diligence. In particular, the Regulation does not require companies to conduct a conflict analysis, nor does it establish meaningful engagement with affected communities and other affected stakeholders as a central part of risk identification and mitigation.
Moreover, although the Regulation aims to avoid encouraging disengagement from CAHRAs simply to reduce compliance risks, its design may create incentives for de-risking. The CAHRAs list may contribute to the stigmatisation of certain regions, while the higher costs and complexity of conducting due diligence in these contexts may encourage companies to source elsewhere rather than engage responsibly. This risks undermining the approach reflected in international standards, which emphasise continuous improvement rather than automatic disengagement.
These gaps have not been addressed in subsequent legislation. The 2023 Batteries Regulation extends due diligence obligations to four critical minerals—cobalt, lithium, nickel and natural graphite. While it acknowledges the complexities of conflict in its recitals, the operative obligations treat conflict as a trigger for additional reporting requirements: when minerals originate from CAHRAs, companies must provide further information, such as the mine of origin and taxes, fees and royalties paid.
The absence of this conflict-sensitive approach is particularly significant in the context of the global race for critical minerals. Through the Critical Raw Materials Act, the EU seeks to secure access to minerals essential for the twin transitions and the defence sector by designating Strategic Projects and Strategic Partnerships both inside and outside Europe. Many of these are likely to involve CAHRAs. Yet the Regulation does not establish due diligence obligations and, again, gives limited attention to conflict sensitivity.
A framework still in the making
The EU has clearly moved beyond voluntary approaches. However, its legislation only partially reflects the broader understanding of heightened due diligence developed through international frameworks, leaving key elements such as conflict analysis and meaningful engagement underdeveloped.
Two ongoing processes could help address this gap. In June 2026, the Commission launched an open consultation on CSDDD guidelines, including on the practical content of heightened due diligence and whether sector-specific rules are needed. In parallel, it initiated a new review of the Conflict Minerals Regulation. Whether the Commission uses these opportunities to strengthen and clarify the EU’s approach to heightened due diligence remains to be seen.
*******************
This blog post is based on the paper to be presented at the conference Sustainability Law: Law’s Response to the Convergence of Crises, 16-18 September 2026, at the University of Oslo
This research has received funding from the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO), under the project 1145226N “Loose Threads in the EU’s Regulation of Mineral Value Chains in CAHRAs: A Case Study on Corporate Heightened Sustainability Due Diligence”.
