Where a potential impact cannot be prevented or adequately mitigated, the company must, as a last resort, refrain from new or extended relationships, suspend the relationship where the law allows, and adopt an enhanced prevention action plan, after assessing whether suspension would cause manifestly more severe harm.
The requirement, in our words
Where a potential adverse impact cannot be prevented or adequately mitigated, the company must, as a final step and for as long as the impact persists, refrain from new or extended relationships with the partner concerned, suspend the relationship for the activities concerned where the governing law allows (including to build leverage), and promptly adopt and carry out a reinforced prevention plan where success is reasonably expected; continuing engagement while that expectation holds does not by itself attract penalties or liability. Termination is no longer required. Before suspending, the company must assess whether suspension would cause manifestly more severe harm, in which case it need not suspend and must be able to justify this to the supervisor. When it suspends it must limit the effects, give reasonable notice and keep the decision under review; when it does not, it must monitor the impact and periodically reassess.
Why it matters
The provision sets a sequence and a safety valve. The sequence is engagement, then the last-resort measures. The safety valve is the assessment before suspension: if suspension would cause manifestly more severe impacts, the company is not required to suspend and must explain its reasons to the supervisor. The enhanced plan keeps the relationship under pressure while the company tries to fix the impact.
What changed
The old Article 10(6) allowed suspension as a last resort. The replacement adds the no-new-relationship step, the enhanced plan, the harm assessment and the reporting route.
What to do
- Write the enhanced prevention action plan with milestones, owners and a review date.
- Assess the harm of suspension against the unresolved impact before deciding.
- If the company does not suspend, record the reasons and keep the impact under review.
Evidence to have ready
| Category | Artefact |
|---|---|
| Remediation and exit | A reinforced prevention plan for that impact with milestones and owners |
| Remediation and exit | Pre-suspension impact assessment comparing the harm of suspending with the unresolved impact |
| Remediation and exit | Suspension notice to the business partner and review log, or monitoring record where suspension was not chosen |
Common failures
- Relationship suspended without the required prior assessment of the effects
- Engagement continued with no plan or monitoring, relying on the penalty protection
Dates
Transposition by 26 July 2028; application from 26 July 2029.
The question to test
Did the company assess the harm of suspension before deciding, and is the enhanced plan live?
Cross-references
A4-9 Prioritisation protection · A4-11 Actual impact last resort
Source
Article 4(8), replacing Article 10(6) of Directive (EU) 2024/1760; OJ L 2026/470, 26 February 2026; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32026L0470. Our statement of the duty, read from the Official Journal text and the held control record, not the instrument verbatim.
Not legal advice; does not certify. A reading of the duty and the evidence commonly sampled, not a substitute for the Official Journal text, the national transposing measure or your auditor's judgement.