The European Commission faces fresh scrutiny over its rapid legislative proposals on sustainability and climate measures, with the EU Ombudswoman highlighting procedural shortcuts and transparency concerns in the controversial Omnibus initiative.
The European Commission has been criticised by the EU Ombudswoman, Teresa Anjinho, for failing to adhere to its own procedural standards in the development of legislative proposals aimed at simplifying and reducing corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence requirements. Anjinho’s investigation follows complaints arguing the Commission did not comply with its “Better Regulation Guidelines,” which mandate evidence-based, transparent, and inclusive policy-making.
The scrutiny centres on the “Omnibus” initiative, unveiled by the Commission in February 2025. This package proposed significant rollbacks in sustainability regulations, including changes to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), the Taxonomy Regulation, and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The ambition of the Omnibus package is to alleviate compliance burdens, particularly for smaller companies, but has been met with resistance from civil society groups and parts of the European Parliament and Council seeking to limit the scale of regulatory rollbacks.
According to Anjinho’s report, key procedural failures include the drastic reduction of internal consultation periods within the Commission itself. Where a normal consultation window spans ten days, the Omnibus proposals were reviewed in under 24 hours, notably over a weekend, leaving minimal room for thorough internal debate. Furthermore, the Ombudsman identified an absence of documented climate consistency assessments that are legally required under the European Climate Law to verify alignment with the EU’s 2050 climate neutrality target.
This investigation was triggered by complaints from climate and human rights organisations who also alleged that the Commission bypassed public consultations and impact assessments, instead engaging in closed-door meetings with industry lobbyists, some linked to major oil and gas companies, before publicising the proposals. These organisations emphasised that any substantive legislative changes must be firmly grounded in evidence and consistent with overarching EU climate goals, warning that proposals failing these criteria should be withdrawn.
The Commission, while acknowledging the Ombudsman’s recommendations, maintains that its decision-making process was evidence-based and inclusive of consultations, though it has yet to comment on some of the specific criticisms regarding transparency and consultation timing.
The findings are particularly significant as the legislative package moves into negotiation stages between the European Parliament and the Council. Members of the Parliament are pushing for more stringent criteria than the Commission initially proposed, for example, raising the CSRD’s employee threshold from 1,000 to 1,750, effectively limiting the scope of sustainability reporting obligations to larger companies. Similarly, there is pressure to exempt all but the largest companies from the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive’s scope.
Beyond the Omnibus package, Anjinho’s findings extend to other urgent legislative proposals introduced by the Commission in areas like agriculture and migrant smuggling, where similar procedural shortcuts were identified. The Ombudsman’s comprehensive report highlights a pattern of ‘maladministration’ stemming from truncated consultations and insufficient transparency, cautioning that accelerating law-making must not come at the cost of democratic principles and robust evidence-based policy.
The EU Ombudsman, an independent institution set up to investigate maladministration within EU bodies, cannot enforce decisions but can issue recommendations that often influence legislative conduct. In the context of intensifying scrutiny over the EU’s approach to sustainability regulation and climate commitments, these findings underline the delicate balance regulators must strike between regulatory simplification and maintaining rigorous standards aligned with climate goals and public accountability.
As the Omnibus proposals face further revision, the spotlight remains on ensuring that any easing of sustainability rules does not undermine the EU’s legally binding commitments to climate neutrality and corporate responsibility, particularly given the heightened expectations from civil society and climate advocacy groups. The outcome of this regulatory tension will be closely watched, as it will shape the future architecture of corporate responsibility and climate governance across the European Union.
- https://www.esgtoday.com/eu-watchdog-says-commission-failed-to-follow-procedures-in-cutting-sustainability-reporting-rules/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=eu-watchdog-says-commission-failed-to-follow-procedures-in-cutting-sustainability-reporting-rules – Please view link – unable to able to access data
- https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/eu-watchdog-accuses-commission-lack-transparency-urgent-proposals-2025-11-27/ – The EU Ombudswoman, Teresa Anjinho, has criticised the European Commission for bypassing its own transparency and evidence-based procedures while rushing legislative proposals on sustainability reporting, agriculture, and migrant smuggling. Following a complaint from climate and human rights organisations, the Ombudswoman conducted an inquiry and found the Commission failed to adequately justify the urgency of these measures. She deemed the lack of proper process as ‘maladministration’ and emphasised that core principles of good lawmaking must not be sacrificed for speed. The complaint specifically alleged that the Commission weakened sustainability rules after closed-door meetings with industry lobbyists, without public consultation or impact assessments. In response, the Commission stated it would review the recommendations carefully and insisted that its decision-making was evidence-based and included consultations. The complainant organisations underscored that any legislative proposal must align with EU climate goals and called for a withdrawal of the proposals if these standards are not met.
- https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/11/27/eu-ombudsman-says-commission-guilty-of-maladministration-in-opening-up-climate-laws – The EU’s corporate watchdog found the European Commission’s decision to re-open the bloc’s due diligence law without climate assessments amounted to malpractice. The findings of the EU Ombudsman, the bloc’s corporate watchdog, came a few days before the Commission is due to present yet another ‘simplification package’ streamlining environmental laws. The Ombudsman began investigating the case after eight civil society organisations raised concerns about malpractice, claiming that the Commission had failed to carry out a prior impact assessment, including a climate consistency assessment and a public consultation, before proposing the simplification laws. The organisations underscored that any political agreement should be grounded in evidence and in line with EU climate goals. ‘If this cannot be secured, the Commission should withdraw its proposal,’ their statement said.
- https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/eu-watchdog-launches-inquiry-into-commissions-easing-green-rules-2025-05-23/ – The European Ombudswoman, Teresa Anjinho, has launched an inquiry into the European Commission’s recent move to relax EU sustainability laws through its ‘simplification omnibus’ proposal. This initiative, introduced in February, aims to reduce reporting obligations for smaller businesses and ease supply chain checks for larger corporations. The investigation was prompted by a complaint from eight civil society organizations, alleging that the Commission bypassed its own regulatory standards by failing to conduct a public consultation or an impact assessment. The complainants also accuse the Commission of holding closed-door meetings with industry lobbyists before announcing the changes. Ombudswoman Anjinho has formally requested explanations from the Commission on the lack of public consultation and the selection of stakeholders involved in the discussions. The Commission’s proposal followed industry concerns about Europe’s stringent regulations, arguing they hinder competitiveness against countries like China and the U.S., where regulatory rollbacks are ongoing. No comment was immediately provided by the Commission. The European Ombudsman, an independent body founded in 1995, investigates maladministration in EU institutions, either on its own initiative or in response to public complaints.
- https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/eu-commission-faces-complaint-over-easing-sustainability-rules-2025-04-17/ – Climate and human rights advocacy groups, including ClientEarth, have filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman against the European Commission. The complaint challenges the Commission’s proposed ‘Omnibus’ legal changes that would ease EU sustainability regulations, particularly exempting smaller businesses from sustainability reporting and reducing large firms’ obligations to monitor human rights and environmental impacts within their supply chains. Critics argue that the changes were made without public consultation or proper impact assessments, which they claim constitutes maladministration. They also allege that the Commission favored industry stakeholders, including major oil and gas firms like ExxonMobil, Eni, and TotalEnergies, in private meetings ahead of public disclosure, undermining transparency and democratic processes. Although the Ombudsman lacks enforcement authority, it can open an inquiry and issue recommendations, potentially influencing future EU legislative actions. The Commission has not yet responded to these allegations.
- https://www.eureporter.co/politics/european-commission/2025/11/27/eu-watchdog-calls-for-better-balance-in-law-making/ – European Ombudswoman Teresa Anjinho has found a number of ‘procedural shortcomings’ in how the European Commission prepared several legislative proposals that it considered urgent. Taken together, the shortcomings amounted to maladministration, says the official. The findings are based on three separate complaint-based inquiries that examined the extent to which the Commission applied the standard policy-making rules and procedures when preparing legislative drafts concerning corporate sustainability due diligence (Omnibus I), the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and countering migrant smuggling. In a report, the ombudswoman said, ‘When preparing these legislative proposals, the Commission did not carry out certain parts of its own Better Regulation rules which are meant to ensure law-making is evidence-based, transparent, and inclusive.’
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative is current, with the EU Ombudswoman’s findings published on 27 November 2025. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/eu-watchdog-accuses-commission-lack-transparency-urgent-proposals-2025-11-27/?utm_source=openai))
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
No direct quotes are present in the provided text.
Source reliability
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative originates from ESG Today, a specialised outlet focusing on environmental, social, and governance topics. While not as widely recognised as major news organisations, it is a reputable source within its niche.
Plausability check
Score:
9
Notes:
The claims align with recent reports from established outlets like Reuters and Euronews, which also covered the EU Ombudswoman’s findings. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/eu-watchdog-accuses-commission-lack-transparency-urgent-proposals-2025-11-27/?utm_source=openai)) The narrative provides specific details about the Commission’s procedural shortcomings, consistent with these reports.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative is fresh, with no recycled content identified. It provides specific details corroborated by other reputable sources, enhancing its credibility. The absence of direct quotes and reliance on paraphrased information from established outlets further supports its reliability.