CSRD in the Netherlands: Implementation Status, Scope and Filing Requirements

If you are looking for the Dutch CSRD statute, there isn't one yet.

As of September 2026 the Netherlands has not transposed the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. There is a bill before the Tweede Kamer, two draft decrees behind it, and a great deal of voluntary reporting already happening — but no Dutch statutory sustainability reporting obligation in force. Any adviser telling you that Dutch law currently requires a CSRD report is describing a future state, not the present one.

That gap is the single most important fact for planning, and it has some genuinely unusual consequences. This guide sets out where the legislation stands, what it will require when it lands, and what Dutch companies should be doing in the meantime.

Last reviewed: 8 September 2026. Dutch implementation is actively moving and is being rewritten to reflect the EU Omnibus directive. Verify the current position before relying on anything here for a filing decision.

Where the Dutch legislation actually stands

Transposition is being done through three instruments, intended to enter into force together:

• Wet implementatie richtlijn duurzaamheidsrapportering (bill 36 678) — the Act. Submitted to the Tweede Kamer on 13 January 2025. Still awaiting plenary debate and a vote.
• Implementatiebesluit richtlijn duurzaamheidsrapportering — an AMvB (decree). This is where the actual reporting duties sit. At the Raad van State.
• Besluit assurance-onderzoek duurzaamheidsrapportering — a second decree, covering assurance. Draft.

The timeline tells the story. The EU deadline was 6 July 2024 and was missed. On 12 February 2026 the Finance Committee suspended consideration of the bill at the Minister's request, pending the outcome of the EU Omnibus negotiations, and the scheduled wetgevingsoverleg was cancelled. A further amendment reflecting the Omnibus went to the Raad van State in April 2026, which advised on 5 June 2026. At the time of writing there is no confirmed date for entry into force, and any date you see quoted should be treated as a forecast.

The European Commission opened infringement proceedings against the Netherlands with a letter of formal notice on 26 September 2024, and the Minister of Finance was still describing the position in those terms in February 2026. We have found no confirmation of a referral to the Court of Justice over the CSRD specifically — the Netherlands was referred to the CJEU in July 2026, but over the NIS2 cybersecurity directive, which is a different matter entirely.

A drafting detail that matters

The reporting obligation is not being written directly into Book 2, Title 9 of the Burgerlijk Wetboek. It goes into a decree grounded on article 2:391a(2) BW, the standing delegation for implementing EU rules on the bestuursverslag. The Act itself mainly amends the supervisory and professional statutes — the Wta, Wft, Wab, Wtra and WED — plus articles 2:392, 2:393 and 2:394(1) BW, and inserts a new article 2:393a BW for the assurance engagement.

The practical consequence: when you go looking for your obligations, most of them will be in the decree, not the Act.

Who is in scope after the Omnibus

The Dutch scoping is being rewritten to follow Directive (EU) 2026/470, the substantive Omnibus directive, published in the Official Journal on 26 February 2026 and in force since 18 March 2026. Member states have until 19 March 2027 to transpose it.

Under that directive, an EU undertaking is in scope only if it exceeds both:

• more than 1,000 employees on average during the financial year, and
• more than €450 million net turnover,

measured at individual or group level, for financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2027. Listed SMEs come out of mandatory scope altogether. For the EU-level detail and how this replaced the earlier wave structure, see our Omnibus guide.

The Dutch impact is dramatic and well quantified. The Minister of Finance stated in May 2026 that the number of Dutch reporting entities falls by roughly 85 percent — from an estimated 3,000 to 6,000 companies under the original CSRD to approximately 220 companies. If you were preparing for CSRD as a mid-sized Dutch company, there is a strong chance you are simply no longer in scope.

The Netherlands also intends to use the member-state option to relieve the original first-wave public-interest entities — listed companies, banks and insurers with 500 to 1,000 employees and turnover below €450 million — from reporting for financial year 2025 onward. Treat that as stated intent: it is not law yet.

A few Dutch-specific exclusions are already in the draft decree. De Nederlandsche Bank, public development banks and credit unions are outside scope.

The repair clause: the Dutch peculiarity worth knowing

Here is where the Dutch situation gets strange. Because the directive applies from financial year 2024, implementation will be retroactive — the government takes the view that the principle of Unietrouw leaves no room to avoid that. Meanwhile, nearly all large Dutch listed companies went ahead and reported voluntarily under the ESRS for FY2024 anyway, and their accountants gave assurance on those reports.

That created an obvious problem: companies that had done the right thing voluntarily could find themselves judged retroactively against a statute that did not exist when they reported. After protests from the NBA, VEUO, VNO-NCW and Eumedion, the Minister announced a reparatieclausule in February 2026. Companies and accountants that voluntarily complied before entry into force are deemed to have complied with the implementing legislation — specifically where the company prepared and published an ESRS-compliant sustainability statement for FY2024 and FY2025, and an external accountant performed assurance under NBA Standaard 3810N, insofar as could reasonably be expected without implementing legislation.

The government has said that if the legislation is not in force by 1 October 2026, the repair clause will be extended to FY2026 as well. Given that the bill has not been debated, that extension looks likely — but it is an intention, not yet law.

Where the report is filed, and in what format

The sustainability statement sits inside the bestuursverslag (the management report), as an identifiable separate section — not as a standalone document.

• Filed with the KVK Handelsregister under article 2:394 BW. Note a change here: the draft decree removes the existing exemption from filing the bestuursverslag at the trade register for companies that must produce a sustainability statement. For in-scope companies, the whole management report becomes filable.
• Published on the company's own website, implemented by amending article 2:394(1) BW.
• Format: XHTML, the ESEF electronic reporting format, applied to the entire bestuursverslag, with the sustainability information digitally tagged for machine readability. The Besluit elektronische deponering handelsregister is amended for digital filing.

One caveat on tagging: the Commission's ESRS digital taxonomy had not been adopted when the draft explanatory memorandum was written, so the detailed tagging specification remains unsettled. Our XBRL and digital tagging guide covers the mechanics, but expect the Dutch detail to firm up late.

Listed issuers have an additional layer: the CSRD extends the Transparency Directive obligations, so their sustainability statement also falls within the AFM's Wft regime.

Language: English is expressly permitted

This is a common question and the answer is comfortable. Under article 2:394(1) BW, the accepted languages for annual reporting filed with the trade register are Dutch, or — if no Dutch version was produced — French, German or English. The Netherlands has chosen to apply the same language rules to the sustainability statement.

So Dutch is the default, English is expressly acceptable and is what most large Dutch multinationals actually use. It is not unrestricted, though: the permitted set is Dutch, English, German and French, and nothing else.

Assurance: accountants only

Three decisions here are worth knowing, because the Netherlands has landed differently from some of its neighbours.

Limited assurance, and it stays there. The step-up to reasonable assurance has been dropped by the Omnibus directive. The Commission is to adopt harmonised limited assurance standards by 1 July 2027. Our assurance guide covers what limited assurance actually involves.

Only accountants may sign. The CSRD lets member states open sustainability assurance to independent assurance service providers. The previous cabinet was positive about doing so and commissioned research on it. In May 2026 the cabinet decided against it, and will maintain the existing system in which only accountants may perform sustainability assurance. The stated reasoning is a direct consequence of the Omnibus: with only around 220 companies in scope, building an equivalent professional body, supervisory regime and disciplinary system for a new category of provider is not proportionate. Accountants are instead encouraged to cooperate with conformity assessment bodies, with the signing accountant remaining ultimately responsible.

But it need not be your statutory auditor. The Netherlands does use the option allowing a different external accountant, and even a different audit firm, to perform the sustainability assurance than the one performing the statutory audit. The Wta is amended to handle confidentiality and information sharing between them. That is a real procurement choice, and worth thinking about deliberately rather than defaulting to your existing auditor.

Two further mechanics. Assurance providers need a separate endorsement (aantekening) in the NBA accountantsregister and, for firms, in the AFM register — requiring additional theory subjects and at least eight months of the three-year practical training in sustainability assurance. And under the new article 2:393a BW, the algemene vergadering awards the assurance engagement separately from the audit engagement, with the supervisory board or management board as fallback. A temporary rule covers FY2024 and FY2025 where the AGM could not have done so, lapsing on 1 January 2027.

The applicable national standard is NBA Standaard 3810N, which continues to apply until the EU assurance standards are adopted.

The AFM's role — and the gap in it

The AFM wears three hats: supervising audit firms under the Wta, issuer transparency under the Wft, and the content of listed issuers' reporting under the Wet toezicht financiële verslaggeving.

There is a genuine and underappreciated limitation in the third one. Wtfv supervision is civil-law based. The AFM can request clarification, issue recommendations, and petition the Ondernemingskamer of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal — but it cannot impose a fine on an issuer for a defective sustainability statement. The AFM asked to be given administrative powers during consultation; the government declined to do it in this bill, calling it a fundamental change to the system, and opened a separate track to consider it later.

The AFM has not been idle in the meantime. It made CSRD a supervisory priority, published observations on FY2024 reporting, and issued a report in February 2026 on the first year of sustainability assurance by the six largest audit firms.

Penalties: lighter than you might expect

There is no CSRD-specific fine regime for reporting companies in the Dutch draft. Enforcement rides on the existing bestuursverslag architecture:

• Civil. Any interested party can demand compliance with the publication obligation under article 2:394(7) BW, and with the assurance obligation under the new article 2:393a(2) BW.
• Ondernemingskamer. Under articles 2:447 and 2:449–451 BW the court can order a company to restructure its sustainability statement. The AFM can initiate this too.
• Criminal. The Wet op de economische delicten covers failure to publish, and — newly — failure to award the assurance engagement. Deliberately, it does not reach the content of the sustainability statement; the bill amends the WED reference specifically to remove that suggestion. Content disputes go to the Ondernemingskamer, not to criminal court.
• Administrative fines are available to the AFM only against audit firms and accountants under the Wta, not against reporting companies.

If you are used to the penalty regimes in other member states, the Dutch approach is noticeably more civil-law and less punitive.

What Dutch companies should do now

1. Re-test whether you are still in scope. With roughly 220 Dutch companies expected to remain in scope, the first question is no longer "how do we comply" but "do we have to". Run the 1,000-employee and €450 million turnover test at group level.
2. If you have been reporting voluntarily, keep going — carefully. The repair clause protects voluntary FY2024 and FY2025 reporting done to ESRS with Standaard 3810N assurance. Continuing on that basis is the safest path, and it preserves the investor and customer relationships that motivated the voluntary report in the first place.
3. Do not treat "no Dutch law yet" as "no obligation". Value-chain data requests from in-scope customers do not wait for transposition, and your double materiality assessment takes months regardless of when the statute lands.
4. Decide deliberately who does your assurance. The Netherlands permits a different firm from your statutory auditor. That is a choice worth making on the merits.
5. Watch 1 October 2026 for whether the repair clause is extended to FY2026, and 19 March 2027 as the outside date for Omnibus transposition.

Frequently asked questions

Is the CSRD law in the Netherlands yet? No. As of September 2026 the implementing Act (bill 36 678) is pending in the Tweede Kamer and the decrees carrying the actual reporting duties are not in force.

Does my Dutch company still have to report? Possibly not. After Directive (EU) 2026/470, mandatory scope is limited to undertakings exceeding both 1,000 employees and €450 million net turnover, for financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2027.

Can we file our sustainability statement in English? Yes. Article 2:394(1) BW permits Dutch, English, German or French, and the same rule is being applied to the sustainability statement.

Do we need our statutory auditor to give the assurance? No. The Netherlands allows a different accountant or audit firm to perform the sustainability assurance, though it must be an accountant with the specific endorsement — independent assurance service providers are not permitted.

We reported voluntarily for FY2024. Are we exposed to retroactive non-compliance? The repair clause is designed precisely for this. Voluntary ESRS reporting with Standaard 3810N assurance for FY2024 and FY2025 is deemed compliant, and the government has signalled an extension to FY2026 if the law is not in force by 1 October 2026.

---

Getting this right in a jurisdiction where the statute is still moving is exactly the kind of problem where local experience pays for itself. Browse the CSRD and sustainability consultants listed in the Netherlands, or read our guide on how to hire a CSRD consultant.