{"id":629049,"date":"2025-12-12T22:32:16","date_gmt":"2025-12-12T22:32:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/629049\/"},"modified":"2025-12-12T22:32:16","modified_gmt":"2025-12-12T22:32:16","slug":"eu-agrees-to-gut-sustainability-rules-undermining-climate-ambitions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/629049\/","title":{"rendered":"EU Agrees to Gut Sustainability Rules, Undermining Climate Ambitions"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n\tThe European Union<\/a> has arrived at a preliminary deal to reverse sustainability requirements that were once hailed as a groundbreaking effort to hold big businesses accountable for their social and environmental impacts but have now taken a U-turn that critics say indicates a \u201csurrender\u201d of the bloc\u2019s climate ambitions.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn-scope firms, for one, will no longer need to prepare a transition plan that aligns their business models with the Paris Agreement, reducing their administrative burdens and delivering \u201chistoric\u201d cost reductions for businesses, rapporteur J\u00f6rgen Warborn, a Swedish Member of Parliament, said in a statement on Tuesday.<\/p>\n

\n\tBut Julia Otten, senior policy officer at public interest law firm Frank Bold, disagreed. By deleting the climate transition plan implementation, she wrote in a statement, the EU is \u201cweakening\u201d the key legislative frameworks that businesses need to prepare for climate risks and other global challenges that can severely disrupt their operations and value chains.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThis is counter-productive for businesses, weakens accountability and jeopardizes the EU\u2019s own plans and objectives on climate and the industrial transition,\u201d Otten said. \u201cThe final omnibus agreement reflects short-sighted political decision-making, forced through with the far right, at a time when the EU needs to stand firm and speed up the transition for its own strategic interests.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tOther cuts to the corporate sustainability due diligence directive and the corporate sustainability reporting directive\u2014ostensibly in the name of red-tape reduction but in what appears to be capitulation to pushback from fossil fuel interests, business associations and the Trump administration<\/a>\u2014have been equally drastic.<\/p>\n

\n\tBy requiring only the largest EU businesses with more than 5,000 employees and a net annual turnover of over 1.5 billion euros ($1.8 billion) to carry out due diligence to minimize potential harms in their supply chains, the original scope of the CSDDD has been slashed by 70 percent, leaving just over 1,000 businesses still needing to comply.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe CSRD, now abridged by 90 percent, will cover only companies with more than 1,000 employees and a net annual turnover of more than 450 million euros ($528 million), freezing out all but 4,800 businesses.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe tentative agreement also absolves businesses from systematic scrutiny, allowing them to take a looser risk-based approach while at the same time barring them from soliciting \u201cunnecessary information\u201d from companies not beholden to the same rules.<\/p>\n

\n\tDoing so, its detractors say, not only allows companies to skirt responsibility for serious abuses occurring beyond their immediate business relationships, but it also severely undercuts the EU\u2019s credibility as a trustworthy global actor on climate action, human rights and responsible business conduct.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThat the European Council, led by the Danish EU presidency, and members of the European Parliament agreed to undermine world-leading climate commitments is a colossal EU own goal,\u201d Lotte Leicht, advocacy director at Climate Rights International, a climate and human rights monitoring and advocacy group, said in a statement. \u201cThe companies removed from reporting and due diligence obligations operate in sectors with well-documented risks, from deforestation to forced labor to toxic pollution.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThat actions are being taken to weaken oversight and curtail accountability when climate breakdown is happening at full throttle is particularly disheartening, she said. It was only this week that the world\u2019s largest single market set a legally binding climate target of a 90 percent reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions by 2040. The revised legislation seems to make this challenge harder to square.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThese changes mark a profound shift in the EU\u2019s direction,\u201d Leicht said. \u201cEurope must decide whether it wants to be a continent reshaped in Trump\u2019s image, where corporate lobbyists successfully scrap rules, impunity for abuses continues and the climate crisis is ignored, or a place where facts, science, rights, the rule of law and the planet are defended and protected.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tBut others have praised the deal for cutting complexity. They include Oliver Moullin, managing director for sustainable finance at the Association for Financial Markets in Europe, who welcomed \u201cclear, workable rules\u201d that will \u201csupport the mobilization of finance for the transition while minimizing unnecessary regulatory burdens and supporting competitiveness.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tIn fact, the easing of requirements could go further, he said, adding that policymakers must \u201ccontinue with efforts to streamline regulation and support competitiveness\u2014including through the simplification of the European sustainability reporting standards, the review of EU taxonomy reporting and, as acknowledged in the omnibus agreement, reviewing banking legislation and supervisory requirements\u2014to ensure it remains effective, proportionate and internationally competitive.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tEven so, as regulatory requirements become less comprehensive, so too will the risk of fragmentation increase. More rules are set to be whittled further, such as the waste framework directive, which could see the repeal of the only database that contains information on chemicals of concern used in Europe. The European Commission<\/a> is also eyeing a version of the Circular Economy Act<\/a>, poised for 2026, that will deliver \u201csimpler\u201d harmonized rules and lower costs for cross-border transactions. These could lead to gaps in implementation and enforcement, erode legal certainty and thwart investor confidence.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cWhile the omnibus agreement weakens key aspects of the CSRD and CSDDD, expectations across global value chains are not diminishing,\u201d Gabriele Ballero, manager of public affairs at Cascale<\/a>, the multi-stakeholder organization formerly known as the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, wrote in an email. \u201cEven with fewer entities covered, multinational buyers, investors and consumers will continue to expect credible due diligence, transparent reporting and measurable progress.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tIt\u2019s Cascale\u2019s job, he said, to continue to provide the tools, frameworks and shared expertise to help companies \u201cnavigate this shifting landscape, avoid duplicated effort and demonstrate leadership based on evidence rather than minimum thresholds.\u201d Responsibilities to promote climate action and decent work across the value chain \u201cdo not disappear when legislation is weakened,\u201d Ballero added.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe EU\u2019s ombudswoman has called out the European Commission for what she described as a number of \u201cprocedural shortcomings,\u201d<\/a> amounting to \u201cmaladministration,\u201d in the way it has rushed through the omnibus process. The CSDDD entered into force in July 2024 with significant compromises to its original vision. It would only be five months later that the European Commission would float the idea of simplification, and another two before the first amendments were tabled.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cWith a self-declared urgency, the Commission essentially avoided input and potential pushback on its deregulatory plans,\u201d Lara Wolters, the Dutch politician who was the European Parliament\u2019s lead negotiator on the CSDDD, wrote on LinkedIn. \u201cThe stakeholder consultation was not \u2018public,\u2019 the internal consultation was barely existent and the Commission can\u2019t demonstrate for certain they did the climate assessment they are legally obliged to conduct.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tWolters said that in a \u201cworld of populists making it up as they go along,\u201d the EU should \u201cpride itself on weighing up evidence and expertise.\u201d Instead, this European Commission is \u201cpandering to \u2018feelings\u2019 instead as well as to lobbying that frankly, is starting to resemble pillaging,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n

\n\tBut even the new rules, once rubberstamped, will take a while to go into effect. The revised CSRD will apply from January 2027. The updated CSDDD must be transposed by member states by mid-2028 for entry into force in mid-2029. For those who have decried the omnibus package as deregulation by another name, the regulations come too little, too late.<\/p>\n

\n\tFaustine Bas-Defossez, director for nature, health and environment at the European Environmental Bureau, a network of 180 environmental citizens\u2019 organizations based in more than 40 countries, describes the omnibus maneuverings as no less than a \u201ccoordinated attack\u201d on the laws that protect Europe\u2019s health, climate and nature. She cited a recent European Environment Agency report that found that the EU is \u201clikely off track\u201d or \u201coff track\u201d for most of its 2030 environmental goals.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThe Commission is breaking its own rules to tear up the laws that keep us safe. This is not simplification, it is self-sabotage,\u201d she said in a statement. \u201cIt puts our health and environment at risk, weakens Europe\u2019s competitiveness and creates chaos for businesses who rely on legal certainty. Who exactly are they doing this for?\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The European Union has arrived at a preliminary deal to reverse sustainability requirements that were once hailed as…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":629050,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5174],"tags":[82523,2311,2000,299,5187,2557,1699,170585],"class_list":{"0":"post-629049","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-eu","8":"tag-cascale","9":"tag-climate-change","10":"tag-eu","11":"tag-europe","12":"tag-european","13":"tag-european-commission","14":"tag-european-union","15":"tag-mandatory-due-diligence"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/115708975497399115","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/629049","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=629049"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/629049\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/629050"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=629049"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=629049"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=629049"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}