How can EUCSDDD impact smallholder households by mainstreaming Living Income?

This shift carries profound implications. Under emerging human rights due diligence frameworks, living income is increasingly recognised as a human right. Companies can no longer stop at identifying risks. They must demonstrate how they are actively addressing them. Due diligence is moving from a procedural requirement to a powerful tool for measurable impact and driving meaningful change for small-holder households.  

The World Benchmarking Alliance recently published its 2026 Food & Agriculture Benchmark, assessing 350 of the world’s largest food companies. Of all those assessed, 342 companies scored zero on Living Income indicators. This reinforces the urgent need for a regulatory framework to further mainstream Living Income.

True impact isn't found in a policy manual; it's forged at the procurement desk through the weight of every business decision we make. To move beyond the checkbox exercise of due diligence, we must transform compliance into a living practice by championing fair pricing, securing long-term contracts, and embracing the radical transparency required to see every link in our chain. We can drive meaningful change only when we stop offloading risk and start sharing proportional responsibility, treating supplier relationships as vital investments rather than mere transactions. When we align our purchasing power with principles, we have the right mechanics to make living income for smallholder farmers the norm.

Yet there is a risk that regulation could (unintentionally) push some companies to avoid sourcing from high-risk regions. Human rights due diligence is about improving lives, not avoiding responsibility. Transparency, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and long-term commitment are essential to ensure smallholder farmers are not left behind. 

The urgency of this work has never been greater. Farmers are navigating a series of intersecting pressures: rising input costs, climate shocks and ongoing global cost-of-living challenges. Geopolitical tensions, such as the US-Iran war, have further disrupted global markets, driving up energy prices and the costs of fertiliser and other essential inputs. These pressures make it increasingly difficult for smallholder households to remain resilient in the face of these volatilities.   

Closing the income gap is therefore more than a moral imperative: it is the linchpin of global food security. When we ensure farming households earn a living income, we aren't just providing a decent standard of living; we are fortifying the entire value chain against future shocks. Companies that embrace this challenge understand that they aren't just "paying more", they are investing in the long-term stability of their own operations and the survival of the communities they depend on. Resilience cannot be built on the poverty of the producer. It must be built on the prosperity of the partner. 

Looking ahead to 2029, we have a unique opportunity to get this right. This is the year by which companies are expected to have fully implemented the necessary due diligence practices under the CSDDD. Regulation can also create fairness. When companies that do the right thing are no longer isolated, sustainability becomes the standard rather than the exception. This levels the playing field, strengthening both the moral and business case for action.  

The next three years are critical. We must align on approaches, build capacity, and ensure the right tools and systems are in place to maximise impact while minimising unintended consequences.  

Lessons from previous regulatory rollouts, such as the EU Deforestation Regulation, highlight the importance of clarity, inclusivity, and practical support. Simplifying complex concepts and centring the voices of farmers are essential to avoid repeating past mistakes. To support this work, the Living Income Community of Practice (LICOP), VOICE Network and IDH recently co-hosted a workshop on living income Due Diligence, where we discussed how to respond to the regulatory mandate.  

This is the moment to ensure that the regulation is designed to deliver real impact while avoiding unintended consequences. We must use this regulatory momentum to build a system where farmers can secure a decent standard of living, exercise freedom of choice, and work free from exploitation.