Tomorrow, President Ursula von der Leyen will introduce the Omnibus proposal, framed as a “simplification” of key EU laws. But let’s call it what it is: a corporate-driven deregulation effort that chops down sustainability laws like the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) before they even take effect. 

Instead of an open consultation with workers, civil society, and those affected by corporate abuse, the European Commission has given big business a front-row seat to decide what rules they want to weaken. These closed-door corporate roundtables are being marketed as “reality checks.” But the real reality check is what happens when corporate impunity goes unchecked. Today, we hear from Kalpona Akter, human right defender and trade union leader who has been on the frontlines of this fight against corporate abuse for decades. She knows firsthand what corporate abuse means—and why the EU must uphold, not weaken, due diligence laws. 

A: I was only 12 when my mother told me it was time to start working and bringing money to the family. The factory was overwhelming: 1,800 workers, the noise of machines, the yelling. All that “hurry, hurry, hurry”, and the verbal abuses because of a minor mistake. It was shocking. In fact, I remember seeing my school playground from the factory rooftop and I’d be crying. But I’d never told my mom, I just suddenly aged and took over the responsibility to bring food to my family. 

Two years in, management cut overtime pay – later on I discovered they were already paying us less than they should. Ninety-two workers went on strike. I joined them, I was the number 93 and the only young female worker. Obviously, I never said anything to my family. After two days of negotiations, we won, but management retaliated by firing 26 colleagues. My name wasn’t on the list, but it felt like a bullet that just goes right next to my ear. I felt lucky but pressured. But that’s when I realised: they could take everything from us, and we had no protection. 

Some colleagues were not okay with the U-turn from management and, after seeking for help in other factories, they decided to sue the factory. I could not believe something like that was even possible. “How can we even sue them? They are so powerful. They have money. They have it all to use against us,” I said. Their reply changed my life: “there is a worker law, and we are protected under it”. Right after that, I joined a team of coworkers for a training on workers’ rights and I consider this moment as my re-birth. I would never forget what the trainer said to me: “You are a worker, and your work sheet is eight hours”. It was so simple, yet so powerful. That moment changed my life. I joined my colleagues in fighting back. That fight has never stopped. 

A: The Rana Plaza collapse killed over 1,000 garment workers, making clothes for EU brands like Benetton, Mango, and Primark. After that, the EU said ‘never again’—and that’s why the CSDDD exists today.  

After Rana Plaza, there has been some progress. The Accord on Fire and Building Safety brought binding commitments to make factories safer. Before, we lost an average of 100 workers a year to fires and collapses. Since the Accord, that number is zero. We could say that after Rana Plaza, we managed to start bringing some change because brands took more responsibility instead of empty promises. This is thanks to the fact that companies signed this legally binding agreement, which has an enforceable mechanism, proving that voluntary mechanisms failed workers for years. Unfortunately, we see that change does not come because of workers protection, but because of the imposition from mandatory or legally binding due diligence. 

But when it comes to fair wages, union rights, and freedom from retaliation? No progress. The minimum wage is €98-100 a month—poverty wages. When workers protested last year, the police killed four of them, and fifty thousand workers now face criminal charges and blacklisting. The fight for dignity and justice is ongoing.  

A: I don’t buy this argument that due diligence is ‘too costly.’  We are talking about the very same companies or brands who make huge profit off our labour for years. Mandatory due diligence is not new, companies have been aware of this policy development for years now, since before the CSDDDD discussion started. Do they now claim it’s too complicated? No, it’s just inconvenient for them to take responsibility.  

I find this simplification wave a worrying development where irresponsible businesses and right-wing governments are promising deregulation for power. If the EU simplifies the CSDDD law, then there is no point to have it because you are accepting new prestige or deforestation cases will happen again. We have hope for the CSDDD because it talks about living wages, about freedom of association, climate, forced labour, and gender a little bit. But the CSDDD can only make a difference throughout the entire supply chain if there are clear responsibilities. But now with all these simplifications, the EU will lose the beauty of the due diligence law. Backtracking and mixing it up with some voluntary mechanism will destroy the aim of the CSDDD. I would say, if the EU really wanted to make a voluntary mechanism, then there is no point in having this due diligence law.  

A: If you limit responsibilities to just direct suppliers, then they will hire middlemen based in EU countries like the Netherlands and that would be their direct suppliers.  

With this decision, we as workers understand that Europe does not care who they are sourcing products from, if it’s from Bangladesh or India, it does not matter because it is not the responsibility of big EU corporations. This is nonsense, I do not buy the argument that it is too complicated. Popular fast-fashion brands must know from where they buy their yarn and fabrics, and they must be held responsible for their entire supply chains. 

If the CSDDD is limited to the direct supplier, this will mean empty words for workers, we would be left out. It is unacceptable.  

A: Corporate justice means having a job with dignity, with access to justice. Without it, promises are empty. For me, it means access to remedy: if my rights are violated, I can take my employer to court and hold them accountable. 

This is why I fight for corporate justice. It ensures workers have a safe workplace, fair wages, social protection, and freedom from gender-based violence. It means corporations take responsibility for their impact on people and the planet. 

The fight for justice is a never-ending fight. First, you fight for yourself, then for your co-workers, then for your community. We need to keep fighting because these corporations or these manufacturers will not hand us our rights, they are ready to give up even our legal rights. But change is possible if we stand together. If you need an extra pair of hands, we’re here to fight alongside you.