The European Commission is facing criticism following a report by the EU Ombudsman finding maladministration in how it handled changes to key sustainability laws, including revisions to corporate due diligence, agricultural policy, and migration regulations. The decision to reopen these laws to lobbying efforts was deemed to fall short of evidence-based and transparent decision-making standards. The findings, released on Thursday, come as the Commission prepares to unveil a new package aimed at streamlining environmental legislation.
The issues stem from changes enacted in response to political pressure and lobbying from businesses and governments, particularly regarding the scope of the EU’s Green Deal. Several organizations formally complained about the speed and lack of procedure surrounding the revisions. The report underscores growing concerns about the influence of external factors on European policymaking.
Impact of the Sustainability Law Revisions
The EU Ombudsman launched the investigation after receiving a complaint from eight civil society organizations who questioned the process used to amend these pivotal laws. The groups alleged the Commission failed to adequately assess the impact of the changes through measures like impact assessments and public consultations, particularly regarding climate consistency. They claim the revisions undermine environmental and human rights protections.
These revisions included opening up the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD) law in February 2025, revisiting elements of the Common Agricultural Policy in March 2024, and modifying anti-people-smuggling legislation in November 2023. The CSDDD law, in particular, sparked substantial debate, with the United States voicing strong opposition, citing concerns about unfair trade practices and excessive burdens on businesses.
Civil Society Concerns
ClientEarth, Anti-Slavery International, the Clean Clothes Campaign, the European Coalition for Corporate Justice, Friends of the Earth Europe, Global Witness, Notre Affaire À Tous, and Transport & Environment jointly stated their opposition to what they call the “rushed dismantling” of key Green Deal pillars. Transport & Environment is just one of the groups involved, advocating for cleaner transportation.
The organizations argue that the changes disregard the rights of both people and the environment. Their statement highlights the perceived lack of consultation and thorough impact assessment before the Commission proposed the alterations.
Procedural Shortcomings Identified
The Ombudsman’s investigation revealed “several procedural shortcomings” in the Commission’s handling of the legislative changes. Notably, the report found insufficient justification for bypassing standard practices such as comprehensive impact assessments, public consultations, and assessments of climate consistency.
Additionally, the inquiry questioned the Commission’s internal consultation processes leading up to the proposal, suggesting potential failures in fully documenting reasons for deviating from established lawmaking guidelines. This lack of transparency fueled concerns among critics who fear undue influence from lobbying efforts.
Balancing Agility and Good Governance
The report emphasizes the need for a balance between an “agile administration” and adherence to essential procedural standards. While acknowledging the importance of responsiveness, the Ombudsman stated that “certain principles of good law-making cannot be compromised even for the sake of urgency.”
The findings suggest the Commission needs to clearly explain the rationale behind any departures from standard procedures, ensuring accountability and transparency in its decision-making.
What’s Next for EU Sustainability Policy?
The Ombudsman’s recommendations call for improvements in the Commission’s legislative processes to ensure greater accountability and transparency. These changes are especially pertinent as the Commission prepares to present a new “simplification package” focused on streamlining environmental regulations in the coming days. Observers anticipate this package will face increased scrutiny in light of the Ombudsman’s report.
This decision highlights the ongoing tension between economic interests and environmental and social goals within the EU. Stakeholders will be closely watching how the Commission responds to these criticisms and whether it will adjust its approach to future legislative initiatives, particularly those concerning climate change and sustainability. The debate around corporate accountability continues and will likely shape the future of EU regulation.
