Urging the United States to reject compliance with the European Union's Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.
Summary
HCR 9 is a House Concurrent Resolution that urges the United States Congress and the President to reject any efforts to comply with the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). The resolution frames the EU directive as an extraterritorial ESG mandate that would influence business practices in the United States and across global supply chains, and it argues that the directive would impose requirements related to labor, climate, social policy, and corporate conduct.
The resolution does not change New Hampshire statutes or create new state regulatory requirements. Instead, it is a formal expression of the Legislature’s position on federal policy and international business regulation, and it directs the clerk to transmit the resolution to federal officials and other state legislatures. Its practical effect is advisory and political, aimed at encouraging federal resistance to compliance with the EU directive and building support from other states.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text and the recorded vote is strongly opposed to the EU directive. The House vote of 204-163 to adopt the resolution suggests substantial support, but also a meaningful minority that did not agree with the measure. The bill’s language is highly critical of ESG regulation and portrays the CSDDD as a threat to U.S. sovereignty and business autonomy.
The main point of contention is the underlying characterization of the CSDDD and ESG policy. Supporters of the resolution view the directive as coercive, economically burdensome, and an attempt by the EU to extend its standards into U.S. commerce. Opponents are likely to object to that framing, especially the resolution’s broad claims about censorship, “vassal state” language, and the assertion that the directive would fundamentally transform U.S. business practices. Because no committee transcript is available, the specific arguments made in debate are not documented here.
Impact
HCR 9 does not amend New Hampshire law or affect state agencies, regulated industries, or enforcement mechanisms directly. Its impact is limited to a legislative statement urging federal officials to reject compliance with the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and to share that position with other states and members of Congress. The resolution is therefore symbolic and political rather than regulatory, but it may contribute to interstate and federal advocacy on ESG, corporate due diligence, and international trade policy.
Sentiment
The sentiment around HCR 9 appears generally favorable among House members who supported it, as reflected by the 204-163 OTP vote. The resolution’s tone is strongly anti-ESG and skeptical of foreign regulatory influence, indicating that supporters viewed it as a defense of U.S. sovereignty and business independence. At the same time, the size of the no vote shows that a substantial minority did not support the resolution, suggesting disagreement over both the policy merits and the rhetoric used in the measure.
Contention
The central contention is whether the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive is an inappropriate foreign intrusion into U.S. commerce or a legitimate sustainability and human-rights framework for multinational business conduct. Supporters argue that the directive would impose costly ESG, labor, climate, and social requirements on U.S.-based companies and their supply chains, while critics are likely to dispute those claims and object to the resolution’s sweeping language about censorship, coercion, and U.S. subordination to the EU. The vote margin indicates that the issue was politically divisive even though the resolution itself has no direct legal effect.