President

European Commission

 

Dear President,

I refer to my letter of 16 May 2025, in which I informed you of having opened an inquiry into the above complaint.[1]

The complaint concerns the Commission’s alleged failure to comply with its Better Regulation Guidelines & Toolbox[2] in preparing the legislative proposal to amend the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD),^[3] which is one of the proposals that forms part of its Omnibus I simplification package.^[4]

Specifically, the complainants are concerned that the Commission departed from key procedural requirements foreseen in the Better Regulation Guidelines, by failing to carry out an impact assessment and a public consultation without a proper justification. In their view, the Commission performed a rushed inter-service consultation that was not in line with its rules of procedure. The complainants are also concerned that the Commission did not carry out a climate consistency assessment as foreseen by the European Climate Law.[5]

On 16 June 2025, my inquiry team held a meeting with your services. Enclosed with this letter, you will find the report on the meeting. I would also like to thank you and your services for providing my Office with the documentation I asked to inspect.

I have now concluded that it is necessary to receive a written reply from the Commission on the main issues raised in this case, based on the material gathered to date.

1. On the absence of an impact assessment

While the legislative proposal in question would, in principle, have required a full-fledged impact assessment,[6] the Commission did not conduct one, preparing instead an analytical document, in the form of a staff working document.

The Better Regulation Guidelines & Toolbox foresee the possibility of derogating from their requirements, including the requirement to carry out an impact assessment. However, these derogations must follow certain procedural rules. Derogations must be thoroughly justified and well explained at the time of the adoption of the legislative proposal, to allow the public to scrutinise the Commission’s reasons to derogate from its rules. Otherwise, EU citizens may question the Commission’s commitment to a transparent, inclusive and evidence-based law-making process.

Based on the material made available to date, the Commission does not seem to have adequately justified derogating from its rules in this case.

In its explanatory memorandum, the Commission justified the “critical urgency” of the proposal, and the related derogation from the impact assessment requirement, with the need to maintain the competitiveness of EU businesses. During the meeting with my inquiry team, the Commission clarified that the urgency resulted from the difficult economic situation in the EU and factual issues of implementation, including the need to allow companies to plan ahead. The Commission also referred to the ‘Draghi report’^[7] and the challenges it had revealed in terms of the competitiveness of the EU economy, including in view of the regulatory burden imposed on companies.

However, the Commission did not indicate any sudden or unexpected event that would justify the urgency. Nor did the Commission explain why in a first instance the ‘stop the clock’ measures[8] would not have been sufficient to address the critical urgency mentioned. It would appear that the adoption of these measures could have allowed the Commission sufficient time to conduct an impact assessment of the proposed substantive changes to the CSRD and the CSDDD (laid down in the legislative proposal at issue in this inquiry). I also note that the Commission did not provide for inspection any document addressing the urgency of the situation, and the consequent need to derogate from the impact assessment requirement. I would therefore be grateful if the Commission could comment on this.

I would also be grateful if the Commission could explain with reference to relevant parts of its impact assessments of the existing legal acts (that is, the CSRD and the CSDDD), to what extent these previous impact assessments cover the amendments in the legislative proposal in question.

2. On the absence of a public consultation

I understand that in this case the Commission considered that a public consultation was not required under the Better Regulation Guidelines (in the absence of an impact assessment), nor was it feasible (in view of the above-mentioned urgency) or necessary (in view of various other exchanges with stakeholders).

It remains unclear to what extent the call for evidence on the rationalisation of reporting requirements from October to December 2023 and the two large hybrid stakeholder forums on the CSRD of May and November 2024 covered the elements of the specific legislative proposal at issue. I would be grateful to receive further clarifications from the Commission in that regard.

The two meetings organised in February 2025, attended mainly by industry and business interests, seem to have been the only stakeholder exchanges held specifically on the legislative proposal in question.

It is not clear how the stakeholder exchanges referred to in the explanatory memorandum meant that a public consultation would not have added new information, in particular considering that many stakeholders that could have contributed otherwise were not invited to participate in the February 2025 meetings.  

I would be grateful if the Commission could comment on these observations.

3. On the absence of a climate consistency assessment 

In accordance with the European Climate Law, the Commission is required to conduct a climate consistency assessment of any draft measure or legislative proposal “and include that assessment in any impact assessment accompanying these measures or proposals, and make the result of that assessment publicly available at the time of adoption”.[9]

I understand that because no impact assessment was conducted, the Commission took the view that it did not need to publish a climate consistency assessment. While the explanatory memorandum states that the amendments proposed do not undermine the overall objectives of the European Green Deal,[10] the Commission did not include, in the explanatory memorandum or in the staff working document, any analysis to support that conclusion. In addition, while the Commission submitted documents to my Office outlining the general scope of application of the new rules, these documents do not seem to contain a specific internal assessment of the consistency of the legislative proposal with the climate-neutrality objective.

It appears therefore that the Commission did not carry out a climate consistency assessment before adopting the legislative proposal in question, although the European Climate Law does not foresee any exemptions from conducting such an assessment. I would be grateful if the Commission could comment on these concerns.

4. On the Inter-Service Consultation (ISC)

The Commission’s rules of procedure[11] foresee a formal ISC of “the services with legitimate interest on account of the nature, subject-matter or impact of the draft act”.[12] Normally, the services consulted in an ISC are given ten working days to review the proposal and to reply.[13] “In exceptional cases, and on duly justified grounds of urgency”, the rules of procedure allow for the possibility of a Fast-Track ISC with a shortened time frame of 48 hours.[14]  

For the proposal at hand, the ISC was concluded within 24 hours. It was launched on a Friday evening and ended on a Saturday evening. The Commission did not submit for inspection any document explaining the extreme urgency of the file and, in particular, why the Fast-Track ISC time line of 48 hours could not be respected. I would be grateful if the Commission could provide any clarifications on that issue.

5. Next steps

I would be grateful to receive the Commission’s reply, taking into account the issues outlined above, by 15 September 2025.

Considering the importance of this inquiry, and taking into account that the Commission is planning additional ‘Omnibus’ proposals, I do not intend to grant any extension of this deadline.

Yours sincerely,

 

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 11/07/2025

 

 

[1] https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/opening-summary/en/205174.

[2] https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en.

[3] COM(2025) 81 final.

[4] https://commission.europa.eu/publications/omnibus-i_en.

[5] Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality.

[6] The Better Regulation Guidelines state that: “An impact assessment is required for Commission initiatives that are likely to have significant economic, environmental or social impacts or which entail significant spending, and where the Commission has a choice of policy options”.

[7] The Draghi report on EU competitiveness, https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/draghi-report_en.

[8] As foreseen in proposal COM(2025)80 final.

[9] Article 6(4) of the European Climate Law.

[10] See the explanatory memorandum concerning proposal COM(2025)81 final, which says that: “This proposal therefore contains provisions to simplify and streamline the regulatory framework with a view to reduce the burden on undertakings resulting from the CSRD and the CSDDD without undermining the policy objectives of either piece of legislation and to ensure more cost-effective delivery of the overall ambition of the European Green Deal related to the green and just transition.” (emphasis added).

[11] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202403080.

[12] Article 55(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure.

[13] Article 59 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure.

[14] Article 60 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure.