ESG clauses in contracts: how to draft them for the Dutch market

An ESG clause is a contract term that binds your counterparty to environmental, social and governance standards and gives you a remedy if those standards are not met. Dutch law has no separate statute for ESG clauses, so their force comes from ordinary contract law in Book 6 of the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek, BW). The main exception is a clause that only states an aspiration: a promise to “promote sustainability” gives you almost nothing to enforce.

That is why drafting matters. A clause that states a defined obligation, an evidence requirement and a consequence for breach is as enforceable as a delivery term.

The commercial reason to take this seriously has changed in the last two years. European rules on sustainability reporting and due diligence have been narrowed and postponed, but they have not gone away. The obligations that remain have to be met with information that only your suppliers hold. Meanwhile, the rules on misleading environmental claims apply to every business, whatever its size. Contracts have become the instrument through which both sets of duties are actually met.

This article explains what makes an ESG or sustainability clause legally binding under Dutch law, which regulatory duties it has to support, how to build the obligation, the evidence and the remedy, and where these clauses go wrong. It is written for companies contracting in or into the Netherlands. For the general framework, see our guide to Dutch business law and our practical notes on navigating Dutch contract law.

Why do ESG clauses now carry legal weight?

Because three regulatory strands now meet in your contracts: sustainability reporting, due diligence and the rules on environmental claims. Knowing which of them actually applies to you tells you how far your clauses need to reach.

It also prevents a common error: imposing a reporting burden on suppliers for a duty you do not have yourself.

What changed for sustainability reporting after the omnibus package?

Far fewer companies now have to report. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) was substantially amended by the Omnibus I Directive, Directive (EU) 2026/470, adopted on 24 February 2026. The reporting obligation now applies only to undertakings with more than 1,000 employees on average and a net turnover above EUR 450 million, with separate rules for groups from outside the European Union that are active in it. Member States have to transpose the amendments into national law, and the Dutch implementing legislation will follow the European text. Many companies that spent 2024 and 2025 preparing to report now fall outside the scope entirely.

That does not make the contractual question disappear. Companies that remain in scope need data from their value chain, and companies outside the scope are asked for that data by customers who are in scope. The omnibus package also limits how far a reporting company may push information requests down to smaller counterparties: it may not ask them for more than the voluntary reporting standard covers. That makes proportionality in your clauses a legal point rather than a courtesy. See our overview of ESG regulation and what Dutch companies should prepare for.

What is left of due diligence after Omnibus I?

The due diligence directive survives, but in a much smaller form and with later dates. The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) now applies only to the largest companies, and the harmonised European civil liability regime in the original text has been removed. Member States must set a maximum fine of 3% of net worldwide turnover, the transposition deadline moves to 26 July 2028 and the obligations apply from 26 July 2029.

Liability, in other words, is now a matter of national law rather than a European standard. In the Netherlands that means the ordinary rules on tort and on contract. Our article on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive sets out the position in detail.

There is no Dutch supply-chain due diligence statute in force alongside it. The Child Labour Due Diligence Act (Wet zorgplicht kinderarbeid) was adopted in 2019, but its entry into force was left to a royal decree that has never been issued. A contract clause should therefore not refer to a Dutch due diligence act as the source of an obligation. If you want supply-chain diligence, you have to create the duty in the contract itself.

Why do the rules on greenwashing matter for your contracts?

Because they apply regardless of size, and your contracts must produce the evidence behind your claims. Misleading commercial practices are prohibited under the rules on unfair commercial practices in Book 6 BW, and a sustainability claim you cannot substantiate is a misleading practice.

The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (Autoriteit Consument & Markt, ACM) has published guidance on sustainability claims and has taken action against companies whose environmental messaging went further than their evidence. European legislation has added to this by placing generic environmental claims, and claims that rest on offsetting, on the blacklist of practices that are unfair in all circumstances.

For contract drafting this has a direct consequence. If your marketing says your product line is climate neutral, your supplier contracts must generate the evidence that supports it. Your ESG clause is where that evidence obligation lives. A gap between what you claim publicly and what you can require contractually is the classic greenwashing exposure; see our article on greenwashing and ESG compliance risks.

What makes an ESG clause enforceable under Dutch law?

Three things: the right type of obligation, a determinable standard and wording that will be read the way you intend. Dutch contract law starts from freedom of contract, so an ESG obligation is as valid as any other term.

Whether it is enforceable in practice depends on three questions. Settle them when you draft, not when the dispute arises.

Is it an obligation of result or of best efforts?

This decides who has to prove what. Dutch law distinguishes between an obligation to achieve a defined result (resultaatsverbintenis) and an obligation to make a defined effort (inspanningsverbintenis).

Suppose your supplier undertakes to reduce the carbon intensity of the goods it delivers to you by a stated figure by a stated date. If it does not reach that figure, that is a breach, and the supplier must show why it should not bear the consequences. If it only undertakes to use reasonable efforts to improve sustainability, you must prove that its efforts were unreasonable. In practice that is very difficult.

Both types have a place. Compliance with the law, the absence of child and forced labour, holding a valid permit and delivering the agreed information are obligations of result, and you should draft them as such. Long-term decarbonisation trajectories, where the counterparty partly depends on third parties, are often realistically obligations of effort. In that case, specify the effort: a plan, a budget, a named responsible person, a reporting rhythm and external verification.

Is the obligation determinable?

It must be, or a court has nothing to order. A clause that requires a party to “act sustainably” gives a court nothing concrete to enforce.

Determinability comes from three elements: a defined standard, a defined measurement and a defined moment. Referring to an external standard solves most of this, as long as you name the version and say what happens when it is revised. Referring to your own supplier code of conduct only works if the code is attached, identified by version and expressly incorporated. A code published on a website that you can change on your own is a weak foundation.

How will a Dutch court read the clause?

Not by its wording alone. Under the Haviltex standard, Dutch courts ask what the parties could reasonably infer from each other and what they could reasonably expect, taking into account the negotiations, the nature of the parties and the commercial context.

In a negotiated contract between professional parties, the wording carries considerable weight. ESG clauses, however, often appear in general terms imposed on a smaller supplier, and there the balance shifts. Vague obligations imposed on one side tend to be read narrowly against the party that drafted them.

Two further provisions shape the outcome. Under article 6:248 BW, the agreement is subject to reasonableness and fairness, which can both add to the contract and set aside a term where relying on it would be unacceptable. And where the ESG clause sits in general terms and conditions, the rules on unreasonably onerous clauses and the duty to make the terms available before the contract is concluded apply in the ordinary way. Our guides to drafting Dutch agreements and to general terms and conditions cover the mechanics.

How do you build a workable ESG clause?

As a short chain of provisions, each doing one job. A working ESG provision is not one clause, and leaving out a link is what turns it into decoration.

The chain runs as follows:

• The standard. What exactly must the counterparty comply with: named legislation, a named external standard with its version, and the code of conduct attached as an annex.
• The representation and the undertaking. A statement of the position at signing, a continuing obligation to maintain it, and an obligation to tell you promptly if it stops being true.
• The flow-down. An obligation to impose materially the same terms on subcontractors and suppliers, and to enforce them.
• The information duty. What data, in what format, by when and with what assurance, expressly framed so that you may use it in your own reporting.
• The verification right. Audit or inspection rights: who carries them out, how often, on what notice, who bears the cost and what happens if the counterparty refuses.
• The consequence. A graduated remedy: notice, cure period, corrective plan, price adjustment or penalty, suspension and, finally, termination.

Proportionality runs through all six links. A clause that gives you an unlimited audit right over a small supplier with a modest annual spend will meet resistance in negotiation. If you ever have to enforce it, it will be tested against reasonableness. Scale the obligations to the risk, the value and the size of the counterparty, and say in the contract that you have done so. Our overview of types of commercial agreements shows where these provisions sit in different contract structures, and our contract advisory practice deals with the negotiation.

Why do information rights deserve particular care?

Because the information clause is where most value is created and where most friction arises. Three points need your attention.

First, say what the data will be used for, including onward disclosure in your own sustainability reporting and to your auditor. A supplier that has not agreed to this may resist when the request arrives. Second, deal with confidentiality and, where personal data is involved, the legal basis under data protection law. Supply-chain audits that touch on working conditions will almost always process personal data. Third, set the assurance level. An unverified self-declaration, a management certification and third-party verification are three very different products, with three very different price tags.

What should you require on E, S and G?

Start with the obligations the law already imposes, because those are objective and easy to check. Add targets and reporting duties only where you can measure them.

Which environmental obligations work best?

The dullest one is the most useful: compliance with the environmental legislation that applies to the counterparty’s operations. In the Netherlands that legislation has been brought together in the Environment and Planning Act (Omgevingswet) since 1 January 2024. Combine it with an obligation to hold and maintain the required permits and to notify you of any enforcement action or revocation.

That single obligation does more work than a page of aspirational targets. It is objectively determinable and gives you a clean exit when a supplier loses its permit.

Beyond compliance, the useful requirements are those you can check: a stated measurement method for emissions data and the scope it covers, an obligation to report at a stated frequency, an obligation to disclose the use of offsetting rather than actual reduction and, where relevant, an obligation to accept take-back or recycling duties for the goods supplied. Producer responsibility and waste obligations under Dutch and European rules increasingly affect how goods are put on the market; see our article on circular economy legal hurdles and our environmental law practice.

Which social obligations should you include?

Follow the lines that Dutch statute already draws, rather than inventing your own. Dutch law gives you more leverage here than most contracting parties realise.

Under the chain liability rules of article 7:616a BW, a principal can be liable for the wages of workers further down the chain. Requiring compliance with wage legislation, and giving yourself the information rights to check it, therefore protects your own position and not only the workers. Health and safety obligations follow the Working Conditions Act (Arbeidsomstandighedenwet).

Where labour is supplied through agencies, the Act on the admission of labour providers (Wet toelating terbeschikkingstelling van arbeidskrachten, Wtta) introduces a mandatory admission system for agencies. The system is being phased in, with a registration period followed by entry into force and, later, active enforcement. Check the current timetable on the government’s websites. Contracts that will run past that point should already require the agency to hold the necessary admission.

Draft the prohibitions on child labour, forced labour and discrimination as absolute obligations of result, with an immediate duty to notify and a right to terminate, not as targets. For workers posted to the Netherlands, the notification and equal-treatment rules for posted workers apply, and you can make compliance with them a contractual warranty. Our pages on Dutch employment law and labour conditions set out the underlying duties.

Which governance obligations have a legal anchor?

Governance requirements have the clearest legal anchors of the three. Bribery of a public official is a criminal offence under the Dutch Criminal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht, Sr), and so is bribery in the private sector under article 328ter Sr, which covers commercial kickbacks between companies.

The Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act (Wwft) applies to a defined group of institutions and brings customer due diligence and reporting obligations with it. Under the Whistleblowers Protection Act (Wet bescherming klokkenluiders), employers above the statutory size threshold must operate an internal reporting channel and protect those who use it. Requiring a counterparty to maintain one is a reasonable governance term.

Sanctions and export controls deserve their own clause rather than a line in the ESG article, because a breach has consequences that no indemnity can repair. For listed counterparties, the Dutch Corporate Governance Code works on a comply-or-explain basis and expects boards to focus on sustainable long-term value creation. It does not bind a supplier directly, but referring to it in a contract with a listed group is meaningful. See our guides to the Dutch Corporate Governance Code, the corporate governance framework and types of legal compliance.

What happens when a party breaches an ESG clause?

That depends on the remedy you have built in. Dutch law offers four instruments: damages, a contractual penalty, suspension and termination. The contract should say which of them applies to which failure; without a calibrated remedy, an ESG clause is a reporting obligation with no consequence.

Damages or a contractual penalty?

Under article 6:74 BW you can claim damages for loss caused by a failure to perform. For ESG breaches, however, this is the weakest remedy, because the loss is hard to quantify. What is the euro value of a supplier failing to deliver its emissions data on time?

For that reason a contractual penalty is often the practical answer. A penalty clause under article 6:91 BW fixes the consequence in advance and removes the need to prove loss. Keep its limits in mind: the penalty replaces damages unless the contract says otherwise, and a court may reduce it under article 6:94 BW where applying it in full would be clearly unacceptable. A penalty that bears a defensible relation to the seriousness of the breach is therefore not just good practice; it protects the clause.

When can you suspend your own performance?

When the counterparty fails to perform, article 6:262 BW allows you to suspend your own obligations. Suspension is underused. In a supply relationship it means withholding payment or acceptance until the ESG obligation is met. It is faster than litigation and it concentrates the counterparty’s attention. The contract should make clear which obligations count as reciprocal for this purpose.

When can you terminate the contract?

Under article 6:265 BW you can terminate (rescind) the contract when the counterparty fails to perform, unless the failure, given its special nature or minor significance, does not justify this. In most cases the right only arises once the counterparty is in default. That normally requires a written notice of default that gives a reasonable period to remedy the breach.

That is why a cure mechanism belongs in the clause. It is not a concession; it is the step that makes termination safe. List serious breaches, such as forced labour or a criminal conviction, as grounds for immediate termination, and state that performance in those cases can no longer be remedied.

Why design the escalation, not just the exit?

Because ending the contract does not end the problem. Terminating a supplier that has a child labour problem removes the problem from your contract but leaves it in place in the world, and customers and regulators increasingly expect engagement before exit.

A defensible escalation runs from notification, through a corrective action plan with dated milestones and verification, to a price adjustment or penalty, then suspension of new orders, and only then termination where the counterparty will not or cannot improve. Write that sequence into the contract and keep a record of each step. The eventual termination then becomes very hard to challenge. The same record demonstrates your diligence to a regulator or a customer.

Two supporting provisions deserve a place. First, an indemnity allocating fines, third-party claims and remediation costs that arise from a counterparty’s ESG failure. Second, a survival clause that keeps the information, audit and confidentiality obligations alive after termination, so that you can still investigate what happened. Where the relationship is significant, our contract protection checklist and our contract law overview are useful reference points.

Can you still be liable outside the contract?

Yes. An ESG clause allocates risk between the parties, but it does not shield either of them from liability towards third parties. In the Netherlands that liability runs through the general tort provision of article 6:162 BW and the unwritten duty of care that Dutch courts have been willing to apply to the environmental and human rights consequences of corporate conduct.

The best-known example is the climate case against Shell. The 2021 district court judgment, which ordered a reduction in group emissions, was set aside by the Court of Appeal in The Hague on 12 November 2024. The appeal court did not reject the underlying reasoning. It accepted that a company owes a duty of care in relation to dangerous climate change, but held that no specific reduction percentage could be imposed on this company on the basis put forward. Cassation proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad).

The practical lesson for contract drafting: the existence of a duty of care is not seriously in doubt, while its content in a given case is still unsettled. Our articles on how Dutch courts are shaping corporate responsibility and on Dutch climate litigation follow that development.

Two consequences follow for you as a contracting party. First, the Dutch regime for collective actions gives interest groups a route to court that does not depend on any contract, so ESG risk cannot be fully contracted away. Second, directors can be held personally liable where they knowingly allow the company to breach its obligations or where their conduct amounts to serious personal blame. A documented compliance process is part of the answer. See our article on when directors become personally liable and our corporate law guide.

Does a foreign choice of law help in cross-border contracts?

Only for the private-law side. A choice of foreign law does not remove Dutch public-law duties: environmental permits, health and safety rules, wage legislation and criminal prohibitions apply to activity carried out in the Netherlands, whatever the contract says.

What a choice of law does affect is the private-law consequences: which rules govern interpretation, remedies and limitation periods. In a cross-border supply chain, the sensible approach is to align the ESG article with the regulatory standard that applies where the work is performed, and to state expressly that the stricter of the two standards must be met. Where public contracts are involved, the contracting authority’s tender conditions add a further layer; our public procurement guide covers the treatment of sustainability criteria in tenders.

Where do ESG clauses go wrong?

Five patterns recur, and each has a straightforward fix.

The clause imposes a duty you do not have. A company outside the scope of the reporting rules demands full reporting-grade data from a supplier, simply because its template says so. The supplier prices the burden into the contract, or refuses. Start from your own obligations and work outwards.

The standard is a moving target. The clause refers to a code of conduct on a website that you can change at will. A counterparty is entitled to know what it has agreed to. Attach the version, and provide a mechanism for changes, with notice and a right to object.

There is no measurement. The clause requires a reduction without stating the baseline year, the scope of emissions covered or the calculation method. Any dispute then becomes a dispute about arithmetic rather than about performance. Fix the method in the contract.

The remedy is all or nothing. The only consequence of any breach, from a late report to a serious violation, is termination. In practice nothing happens at all, because no one terminates a critical supplier over a spreadsheet. Graduate the remedies.

The public claim goes further than the contract. Marketing promises what procurement never required. Align the two, and have the person who signs off the sustainability messaging read the supplier contract.

What should you do now?

First establish which regulatory duties actually apply to your organisation after the omnibus changes. That determines what you can legitimately require from your counterparties.

Then review your contract templates in three passes. First, check that the ESG article contains all six links of the chain set out above, and that each obligation is drafted either as a result or as a specified effort. Second, check that your public sustainability statements match what your contracts allow you to require and verify. Third, check that the remedy ladder works in a relationship you cannot afford to end.

How do you update existing contracts?

Use the review or change-of-law clause. Many long-term agreements already allow amendment when legislation changes, and the omnibus package is exactly such a change. Where there is no such clause, the renewal date is the moment to act.

Do not add ESG obligations by unilateral notice under a general terms clause. Where the counterparty is a smaller supplier, that route invites a challenge to the term itself. Automated or self-executing compliance mechanisms are increasingly discussed in this context; our article on whether smart contracts are enforceable under Dutch law considers what they can and cannot do. Where compliance duties overlap several regimes, our overview of compliance obligations helps you map them.

Should you link money to performance?

Yes, where you can: the most effective ESG clauses are the ones that touch the invoice. Sustainability-linked pricing, where a discount or bonus depends on verified performance against agreed indicators, changes the incentive far more reliably than a penalty that nobody wants to invoke against a supplier they depend on.

The same logic applies to sustainability-linked financing, where the margin on a facility moves with the borrower’s performance against agreed targets. Both require the one thing that is hardest to negotiate and easiest to skip: an agreed measurement method and an agreed verifier, fixed before the first measurement rather than after a target has been missed. When the mechanism is drafted properly, disputes about ESG performance become disputes about numbers that both parties have already agreed how to produce.

An illustrative example. A Dutch distributor buys packaging from a mid-sized supplier. The contract sets a verified recycled-content percentage per product line, measured each year by a named external verifier using a fixed method. If the target is met, the price for the next year includes a small bonus; if it is missed, the supplier must submit a corrective plan within a set period, and a price reduction applies only if the plan is not delivered. Neither party has to argue about what “sustainable packaging” means.

In summary

• An ESG clause is enforceable under ordinary Dutch contract law (Book 6 BW), but only if it states a defined obligation, a way to prove compliance and a consequence for breach.
• After Omnibus I (Directive (EU) 2026/470), CSRD reporting applies only above 1,000 employees and EUR 450 million net turnover, and the CSDDD applies from 26 July 2029 without a European civil liability regime. Check what you actually need before asking suppliers for data.
• Draft compliance, labour prohibitions and information duties as obligations of result; specify the effort where you agree an obligation of best efforts.
• Build a graduated remedy ladder: notice of default, cure period, corrective plan, penalty, suspension (article 6:262 BW) and termination (article 6:265 BW).
• Make sure your contracts can produce the evidence behind your public sustainability claims, to avoid greenwashing exposure.

Frequently asked questions

Below are answers to common questions about negotiating ESG obligations into Dutch commercial contracts.

Unsure where you stand? Tell us about your situation. We will let you know your options within one working day.

How Law & More can help you with this is explained on our corporate lawyer page.