What a supplier may refuse to answer, and on what authority

In short

• There is exactly one statutory right to decline in this field, and it sits in Articles 19a(3) and 29a(3) of the Accounting Directive.
• Everywhere else refusal is a commercial decision, which is legitimate but unprotected.
• A contract clause that overrides the statutory right is not binding, which is the sharpest sentence in the whole regime.

You can refuse almost anything. The question worth asking is what refusal costs, and there is exactly one place in EU law where the answer is eventually nothing. Directive (EU) 2026/470 gives a supplier averaging no more than 1,000 employees, sitting in a reporting company's value chain, a statutory right to decline information exceeding the voluntary standard, where the request is made for that company's own sustainability reporting. It is a directive, so it reaches you through your own national law and not before, and Member States have until 19 March 2027. Every other refusal in this field is commercial: allowed, sometimes wise, and entirely unprotected.

That distinction is the whole of this page. Most supplier advice blurs it, either by telling you that you have to answer everything or by implying the value chain cap covers far more than it does.

What does "may refuse" actually mean here?

Two very different things, and they are worth separating before you open the questionnaire.

A right means the counterparty is prohibited from requiring the information, and a contract term that says otherwise does not bind you. You are not exercising leverage. You are pointing at a rule that constrains them.

A commercial choice means nothing stops you saying no, and nothing stops them acting on it. Losing the account is the enforcement mechanism. This is not a weak position, but it is a negotiation rather than a rule, and treating it as a rule is how suppliers end up quoting directives at procurement officers who are under no obligation at all.

Almost everything a supplier is asked falls into the second category. The first category has one entry.

Which single provision gives you a right rather than a choice?

Articles 19a(3) and 29a(3) of Directive 2013/34/EU, as amended by Directive (EU) 2026/470 of 24 February 2026.

The mechanics, in the order they matter. Protected undertakings have the right to decline to provide information exceeding the information specified in the voluntary standards, in response to a request made for the purpose of sustainability reporting as required by that Directive. Reporting undertakings shall not require protected undertakings to provide information exceeding the voluntary standards. Any contractual provision contrary to that prohibition shall not be binding. And where a reporter does ask for more, it must ensure that protected undertakings are informed of which information exceeds the standard and of the statutory right to decline.

The non-binding clause is the sharp one. A supply agreement signed in 2024 committing you to provide all sustainability data reasonably requested does not survive contact with it, to the extent the request is a reporting request above the standard.

Before February 2026 none of this existed in this form. The cap was a drafting instruction to the standard setters, limiting what the ESRS could specify. It was not addressed to you and you could not invoke it. Directive (EU) 2026/470 reversed the direction and handed it to the supplier.

Can you use it yet?

Not as a rule you invoke, and this is the part most coverage of the cap leaves out.

Directive (EU) 2026/470 is a directive, not a regulation. It binds Member States to change their own law, and Article 5(1) gives them until 19 March 2027 to transpose the articles the cap sits in. Until your Member State has done that, the right is not in your national law. A directive also has no horizontal effect, which is the technical way of saying it does not create rights that one private company can enforce against another private company. Your customer is a private company. So "I have a statutory right to decline" is not yet a sentence you can stand behind in most of the EU, however accurately it describes what is coming.

There is a second timing problem underneath the first. The right is measured against the voluntary standard, and that standard's content is not fixed either. The Commission adopted the delegated act on 3 July 2026 as C(2026) 5011, it was still in Parliament and Council scrutiny on 28 August 2026, and its own Article 3 applies from financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2027. So nobody can yet say with authority which questions exceed the standard, which is precisely the line the right turns on.

None of that makes this page academic. It makes it a preparation document rather than a shield. What the cap is worth right now is leverage in a negotiation and a reason to fix your contracts: a customer who knows a non-binding clause is coming has an incentive to agree something sensible before it arrives, and a supply agreement you sign in 2026 will still be running when the right lands. Diary the transposition date in your own country and read what its implementing law actually says, because that, not the directive, is what you will be able to point at.

Are you inside the definition of a protected undertaking?

Two conditions, and the first one surprises people.

You must not exceed, on your balance sheet date, an average of 1,000 employees during the preceding financial year. And you must be in the value chain of a reporting undertaking.

There is no turnover limb. That is not an oversight in our reading, it is what the text says, and it has a consequence worth stating plainly: a company can fail CSRD's own turnover test, be comfortably out of scope, and still be over 1,000 employees and therefore unprotected by the cap. A manufacturer with EUR 80 million of turnover and 1,300 staff has no reporting duty and no ceiling on what its customers may ask. A licensing business with EUR 900 million of turnover and 200 staff has no reporting duty and full protection.

One piece of useful plumbing. A reporting undertaking may rely on a self-declaration of size and does not have to verify it, unless it knows the declaration is manifestly incorrect. So establishing the fact costs you a sentence, once, in writing.

One open question we will not pretend to answer. The enacted definition has no place-of-establishment limb, so on its face it does not say whether a supplier established outside the EU is protected. We have found nothing authoritative that tests it. If that is your situation, treat it as unsettled rather than as settled in your favour.

Which requests does the right not reach?

Most of them. This table is the part to keep.

The last two rows are the ones that catch suppliers who have learned about the cap and over-generalised it. EUDR and PPWR bind by role in the chain rather than by company size. If you are the operator or the manufacturer, the obligation is yours directly, and there is no headcount threshold to hide behind. The cap only ever restrains someone else's reporting request.

What can you always refuse, and what happens if you do?

You can always refuse a rating invitation. EcoVadis states that the rating is always solicited and never performed without the knowledge, consent and involvement of the rated company, and that companies can always refuse to undergo an assessment. It is a paid subscription service, not a certification and not a regulatory obligation. Read on 28 August 2026 from the published methodology disclosure. What follows is commercial: your customer does not get the scorecard it wanted, and it decides what to do about that.

You can always refuse a tender question, by not answering it, and score accordingly.

You can always refuse to give more than the voluntary standard even where you are not protected, because refusal is lawful. You are simply exposed if the customer minds.

What should you never refuse?

Substantiation of something you have already said.

If your marketing carries an environmental claim, the evidence behind it is not a favour to the person asking. That is a different regime with a different logic, and the value chain cap has nothing to do with it. Our claims checklist covers what substantiating a claim actually requires.

The same goes for anything you contracted to supply that sits within the voluntary standard. Recital 12 of Directive (EU) 2026/470 is explicit that the cap does not override an existing contractual or legal obligation to provide information within that standard.

What does a good refusal look like on paper?

Short, substantive and specific, in that order.

Lead with what you are supplying, not with what you are withholding. Name the purpose test and ask them to confirm which side of it the request falls on. Ask them to mark the items that exceed the voluntary standard, which is their duty rather than your argument. Then offer a priced route for anything they genuinely need beyond it. A supplier with a real report and one firm line is credible. A supplier with no numbers invoking a statutory right is saying no in a longer way. We go through the wording in which ESG questions you can refuse.

The prerequisite for all of it is having the report. What VSME covers is the shape to aim at, VSME consulting is the shortcut for the non-emissions parts, and the emissions half you can start yourself on a free account on the platform, which serves 5,000+ users and needs no sales call.

One honest limit before you start. A Small Business reviewer on G2 said in August 2026 that loading the data is manual and takes effort, and that once it is loaded the tool works well. Budget for the first load rather than being surprised by it.

Sources: Directive (EU) 2026/470 of 24 February 2026, Articles 19a(3) and 29a(3) as inserted into Directive 2013/34/EU, recital 12, and the transposition deadline in Article 5(1); Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 for the EUDR operator duty; Regulation (EU) 2025/40 for the PPWR role-based duties; the EcoVadis Sustainability Rating methodology disclosure; and Commission Delegated Regulation C(2026) 5011 of 3 July 2026, adopted but still in scrutiny when we read it. All read on 28 August 2026. Check your own Member State's transposing law before relying on the right described here. Verified 16 September 2026.

Facts on this page were last verified on 2026-09-16.