This week’s EU Omnibus developments
A rundown of who is saying what this week, and what more we know about plans to revise Europe’s sustainability rules
The Council of the European Union appears to be steaming ahead with its positioning on the omnibus.
According to its website, it met twice this week to examine the Commission’s proposals to delay and revise the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).
The meetings are run by a new body set up specifically to manage the process, and a decision on Council’s negotiating position is widely understood to be likely before the summer.
Parliament is scheduled to discuss the Omnibus proposal on Monday, and its position on the delays will probably be agreed before the summer, too, though the substantive changes are likely to cause more debate.
Axel Voss, an MEP for Germany’s Christian Democrats and member of the European People’s Party, is inviting people to share their views on the proposals by the end of the month.
Voss has already stated that he thinks the omnibus proposal should have had “a much wider scope”.
“Companies are not complaining solely because of CS3D and its questionnaires,” he said after the Commission’s proposal was unveiled. “They are complaining because, on top of that, they have to fill in information on deforestation, forced labour, conflict minerals, chemicals, batteries and packaging.”
National Level
In France, more than 20 senators are calling for any parts of CSRD that are not yet in force to be revoked, to “avoid confronting companies with major difficulties”.
A proposal tabled on Monday also argued the current timetable for complying with CSRD, which was adopted into French law in 2023, has led to “significant operational difficulties” for the firms covered.
“A four-year postponement of the implementation of the CSRD obligations would allow the companies concerned to better prepare for these new rules, giving them the time needed to structure their reporting effectively, especially since a European project currently being presented provides for a simplification of the requirements via an ‘Omnibus’ text,” said the senators.
The Danish Business Authority, which sits within the government’s business ministry, has advised companies to continue reporting against CSRD until the EU agrees on amendments to the law.
In a Q&A published this week, it noted the current proposals would cut the number of Danish firms in scope from 2,200 to less than 450, but added: “As long as the proposal has not been adopted and implemented into Danish law, companies must follow the current rules”.
“This means that a company must elect a sustainability auditor at the upcoming annual general meeting if the company is subject to the requirement under the current rules to prepare a sustainability report that must be accompanied by a statement.”
If the proposed changes aren’t adopted into Danish law before next year’s reporting deadline for ‘Wave 2’ companies, the authority said “they will still have to report according to the current law”.
Business response
Real Economy Progress wrote earlier this week about the omnibus response so far from companies and business associations.
Since then, Paulien Eckhardt, global ESG lead at IKEA’s parent company Ingka Group, has taken to social media to express her views.
She welcomed plans to remove reasonable assurance requirements from CSRD, revise the taxonomy’s disclosure rules, and ditch sector-specific standards.
However, she appeared to accuse the Commission of “deregulation” in her post.
“The proposed amendments to the CS3D risk watering down the ambition of the legislation, which could question the very impact it could have on better respecting the environment and human rights,” she said.
Eckhardt also noted that there had been little effort in the omnibus proposal to deal with the inconsistencies between the different files.
She urged lawmakers to move quickly on the next stages of negotiations, and to work with stakeholders, saying: “Thoughtful simplification is welcomed, but it must not create loopholes that reduce ambition levels and practicalities.”