Research by the public-interest legal group Frank Bold<\/a> examined 100 large European companies across multiple sectors and found that, in the first year of CSRD implementation, 54% published climate transition plans and 73% disclosed decarbonisation targets, with 40% committing to net zero. Compared with the prior reporting year, the share of companies describing material risks rose from 53% to 94%, and those identifying material impacts from 15% to 94%.<\/p>\nAccording to Frank Bold, these figures show that the CSRD was encouraging companies to go \u201cbeyond boilerplate disclosures\u201d toward a management tool for navigating climate and social risk. Yet even before the shift in the EU\u2019s perspective, weaknesses persisted: only 15% of companies assessed locked-in emissions or external transition barriers, and just 11% detailed how due diligence was implemented. Governance gaps remained, with limited evidence of board-level oversight of sustainability measures.<\/p>\n
Filip Gregor, head of responsible companies at Frank Bold, said the findings demonstrate that \u201cthe framework is delivering, companies are moving beyond boilerplate disclosures. The best performers have adopted a risk-based approach to their value chains, assessed dependencies that could jeopardise their transition, and fully engaged their governance bodies.\u201d He warned that \u201ca stable framework and continued guidance, not deregulation, is essential to turn disclosure into effective risk management.\u201d<\/p>\n
Those results suggest Europe\u2019s reporting architecture was beginning to yield tangible benefits just as policymakers are preparing to loosen it.<\/p>\n
Accountability Off The Table<\/p>\n
For advocates of responsible business, the removal of liability represents a sharp reversal. Richard Gardiner, interim head of EU policy at ShareAction, said the outcome \u201cshows the good, the bad, and particularly the ugly of where Europe stands on sustainable business rules. The decision to remove civil liability is a serious setback for corporate accountability and enforcement. Companies should be held responsible when they fail to prevent harm to people and the planet.\u201d<\/p>\n
Gardiner acknowledged that some positive elements remain, such as mandatory climate transition plans and a due-diligence framework, but described the broader direction as \u201cdeeply concerning\u201d and reflective of a \u201cconstant back-and-forth holding back Europe from delivering on its sustainability commitments.\u201d<\/p>\n
Investor Confidence And Data Integrity<\/p>\n
Institutional investors see a different kind of risk: information asymmetry. Elise Attal, head of EU policy at the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), warned that withdrawing the liability regime \u201cwould remove legal certainty, create an uneven playing field across the Union and restrict access to justice for victims.\u201d The change, she said, \u201cincreases legal and reputational risks for investors.\u201d<\/p>\n
The PRI argues that raising thresholds and narrowing value-chain scope will create transparency gaps across portfolios. Only around 6,000 EU and 900 non-EU companies were expected to fall under the original directive; the Omnibus changes would shrink that universe further, excluding many mid-sized firms from mandatory disclosure. \u201cRather than simplify, these amendments add complexity, diverge from established international guidelines, and create additional work for investors,\u201d said Attal.<\/p>\n
From a fiduciary perspective, she added, mandating transparency \u201cis conducive to competitiveness and growth. Companies that disclose sustainability-related risks are likely to be more resilient, better prepared for sustainability-related challenges and opportunities, and more capable of communicating these factors to investors.\u201d<\/p>\n
The investor view reframes the argument. Compliance costs are visible and immediate; data erosion is slower but ultimately more expensive. Reliable information is the foundation of efficient markets, and weakening it threatens the credibility of Europe\u2019s sustainable-finance ecosystem.<\/p>\n
Global Ripple Effects<\/p>\n
While Brussels argues that deregulation will restore competitiveness, the decision parallels U.S. policy whiplash, where political pressure froze the SEC\u2019s 2024 climate-reporting rule, leaving investors with uncertainty instead of clarity. Yet the risks driving disclosure have not gone away, the European Central Bank warns climate-linked insurance losses already exceed \u20ac30 billion a year, threatening financial stability. Climate impacts now pose material threats to credit portfolios, insurance solvency, and asset values.<\/p>\n
In contrast, California is moving ahead. Two landmark laws, SB 253 and SB 261, require large companies operating in the state to disclose greenhouse-gas emissions and climate-related financial risks. Reporting for Scopes 1 and 2 emissions begins in 2026, Scope 3 in 2027, with climate-risk reports due every two years. These laws will cover thousands of companies with revenues above $500 million, creating an effective U.S. disclosure regime despite federal hesitation.<\/p>\n
Globally, the direction of travel is clearer still. China continues to expand its national emissions-trading system and integrate climate risk into financial supervision. Across Asia and Africa, governments increasingly frame the low-carbon transition as a source of competitive advantage rather than a compliance burden. For emerging economies investing in renewable manufacturing, critical minerals, and adaptation infrastructure, climate policy is becoming industrial policy.<\/p>\n
Against that backdrop, the PRI expects the Omnibus changes to have limited direct impact on global alignment, since the CSRD still extends to thousands of non-EU firms. But the signal matters. Investors have repeatedly asked EU policymakers to preserve the \u201ccore elements\u201d of sustainable-finance legislation to ensure that data remains reliable, comparable, and decision-useful.<\/p>\n
For business leaders, the takeaway is practical. Even if EU thresholds rise, global investors will still demand decision-useful sustainability data aligned with ISSB and emerging assurance standards. Companies that maintain rigorous reporting will preserve access to capital and credibility in supply-chain and M&A due-diligence processes.<\/p>\n
Europe\u2019s Delays Have Real-World Costs<\/p>\n
A recent investigation by Earthsight and Indonesia\u2019s Auriga Nusantara found that timber from newly cleared Borneo forests, including former orangutan habitat, still reaches European markets.<\/p>\n
Delays in the EU\u2019s planned deforestation-free supply-chain law have allowed high-risk wood products to continue entering the bloc legally. \u201cEuropean money is helping to destroy some of the last orangutan strongholds left on Earth,\u201d said Aron White of Earthsight, warning that without swift implementation \u201ccompanies will keep hiding behind misleading green labels.\u201d<\/p>\n
The timing is telling. Even as lawmakers in Brussels dilute enforcement provisions in corporate sustainability rules, NGOs are documenting how European demand still drives destructive practices abroad. What appears to be administrative easing at home risks becoming a self-inflicted strategic risk, eroding the credibility Europe needs to compete in an economy defined by climate risk, resource security, and biodiversity loss. <\/p>\n
The Credibility Test<\/p>\n
At its best, Europe\u2019s sustainability architecture offered markets something rare: predictability. Diluting those rules risks re-fragmenting the landscape just as sustainability data becomes central to credit analysis, insurance underwriting, and portfolio valuation.<\/p>\n
The political desire for relaxation is understandable. After years of economic pressure, many governments want to reduce costs and signal support for business. But markets depend on trust, and trust depends on transparency. If policymakers hollow out the systems that generate credible information, they may find the price of simplicity is uncertainty.<\/p>\n
The next stage is crucial. With the Omnibus package now before the full European Parliament, lawmakers and the Council must reconcile their positions before year-end. Investors will judge whether Europe can preserve the credibility that once made its sustainability framework a benchmark, a decision that will determine not only the framework\u2019s future but also market confidence in its data.<\/p>\n
They will judge whether Europe can preserve the credibility that once made its sustainability framework a benchmark for markets worldwide. The decision will determine not only the future of Europe\u2019s sustainability framework but also the confidence of markets that rely on its data.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Wopke Hoekstra, climate commissioner of the European Union, during a news conference on the “EU’s New Strategy To…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":519059,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5174],"tags":[169035,163837,15679,14920,169032,2000,169034,169031,299,5187,169033,40847],"class_list":{"0":"post-519058","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-eu","8":"tag-climate-disclosure","9":"tag-corporate-due-diligence","10":"tag-csddd","11":"tag-csrd","12":"tag-esg-regulation","13":"tag-eu","14":"tag-eu-omnibus-reform","15":"tag-eu-sustainability-reporting","16":"tag-europe","17":"tag-european","18":"tag-investor-trust","19":"tag-sustainable-finance"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/115416662850867862","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/519058","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=519058"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/519058\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/519059"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=519058"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=519058"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=519058"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"European](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/1761118395_792_960x0.jpg\")
<\/p>\n