With the European Green Deal and the Clean Industrial Deal, the EU set a clear course for the economic transition, serving Europe’s strategic interests of competitiveness and growth while also tackling climate change.

For the EU to reach its industrial decarbonization and competitiveness objectives, the Draghi report identifies an annual investment gap of up to €800 billion. High-quality, reliable and comparable corporate disclosures, including on sustainability risks and impacts, are key to inform investment decisions and channel financing for the transition. EU rules on corporate sustainability reporting have been expected to fill the existing data gap.

While simplification as such is a helpful aim, it looks like the Omnibus initiative is going too far. With the current direction of travel, confirmed by the Council in its agreement on 24 June, the Omnibus is likely to severely hinder the availability of comparable environmental, social and governance (ESG) data, which investors need to scale up investment for industrial decarbonization and sustainable growth, thus impairing their capacity to support the just transition.

The European Commission introduced the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the EU Taxonomy to respond to real needs, voiced over the years by investors and businesses alike. These rules were intended to close the ESG data gap, bring clarity and structure to the disclosures needed to allocate capital effectively for a just transition, and foster long-term value creation.

These frameworks were not meant as ‘tick-box compliance exercises’, but as practical tools, designed to inform capital allocation, and better manage risks and opportunities.

Now, the Omnibus proposal risks steering these rules of course. Although investors have repeatedly shown support for maintaining these rules and their fundamentals, we are now witnessing a broad-scale weakening of their core substance.

Far from delivering clarity, the Omnibus initiative introduces uncertainty, penalizes first movers, who are likely to face higher costs due to adjusting the systems they put in place, and undermines the foundations of Europe’s sustainable finance architecture at a time when certainty is most needed to scale up investment for a just transition to a low-carbon economy.

The cost of downgrading sustainability data

The EU’s reporting framework is a critical enabler of investor confidence, for them to support the clean transition, and resilience building of our economy. It aims to replace a fragmented patchwork of voluntary disclosures with reliable, comparable data, giving both companies and investors the clarity they need to navigate the future.

Let’s be clear: streamlining corporate reporting is a goal that is shared by investors and businesses alike. But simplification must be smart: by cutting duplications, not cutting corners. The Omnibus is likely to result in excluding up to 90 percent of companies from the scope of CSRD and EU Taxonomy reporting, if not more, should the council’s position, which includes a €450 million turnover threshold, be retained. This would significantly restrict the availability of reliable data that investors need to make investment decisions, manage risks, identify opportunities and comply with their own legal requirements.

Voluntary reporting is unlikely to bridge this data gap, both in terms of the number of companies that will effectively report and regarding the quality of information reported. Using basic, voluntary questionnaires that were designed for very small entities would result in piecemeal disclosures, downgrading data quality, comparability and reliability. Market feedback has already demonstrated that it is necessary to go beyond voluntary reporting to avoid these shortcomings. This is precisely why EU regulators designed the CSRD in the first place.

As a result of the Omnibus initiative, investors will likely focus on a limited number of investee companies that are in scope of CSRD and provide reliable information — limiting the financing opportunities for smaller, out-of-scope companies, including mid-caps. This will also restrict the offer and diversity of sustainable financial products — despite the clear appetite of end investors, including EU citizens, for these investments. This runs counter to the objectives of scaling-up sustainable growth laid down in the Clean Industrial Deal, and of mobilizing retail savings to help bridge the EU’s investment gap as proposed in the Savings and Investments Union.

Cutting due diligence blinds investors

The CSDDD is also facing significant risks in the current institutional discussions. Originally, the introduction of a meaningful framework to help companies identify, prevent and address serious human rights and environmental risks across their value chains marked an important step to accelerate the just transition to industrial decarbonization and sustainable value creation.

For investors, the CSDDD provides a structured approach that improves transparency and enables a more accurate assessment of material environmental and human rights risks across portfolios. This fills long     standing gaps in due diligence data and supports better-informed decisions. In addition, the CSDDD provisions to adopt and implement corporate transition plans including science-based climate targets, in line with CSRD disclosures, are providing an essential forward-looking tool for investors to support industrial decarbonization, consistent with the EU’s Clean Industrial Deal’s objectives.

By limiting due diligence obligations to direct suppliers (so-called Tier 1), the Omnibus proposal risks turning the directive into a compliance formality, diminishing its value for businesses and investors alike. The original CSDDD got the fundamentals right: it allowed companies to focus on the most salient risks across their entire value chain where harm is most likely to occur. A supplier-based model would miss precisely the meaningful information and material risks that investors need visibility on. It would also diverge from widely adopted international standards such as the OECD guidelines for Multinational Companies and the UN Guiding Principles.

The requirement for companies to adopt and implement their climate transition plans is also at risk, being seen as overly stringent. However, the obligation to adopt and act on transition plans was designed as an obligation of means, not results, giving businesses flexibility while providing investors with a clearer view of corporate alignment with climate targets. Watering down or downright removing these provisions could effectively turn transition plans into paperwork with no follow-through and negatively impact the trust that investors can put in corporate decarbonization pledges.

Additionally, the council proposal to set the CSDDD threshold to companies above 5,000 employees, if adopted, will result in fewer than 1,000 companies from a few EU member states being covered.

Weakening the CSDDD would add confusion and leave companies and investors navigating a patchwork of diverging legal interpretations across member states.

A smarter path to simplification is needed

How the EU handles this moment will speak volumes. Over the past decade, the EU has become a global reference point in sustainable finance, shaping policies and practices worldwide. This is proof that competitiveness and sustainability can reinforce, not contradict, one another. But that leadership is now at risk.

The position taken by the council last week does not address some of the major concerns from investors highlighted above and would lead to even more fragmentation in reporting and due diligence requirements across companies and member states.

While the window for change is narrowing, the European Parliament retains the capacity to steer policy back on track. The recipe for success and striking the right balance between stakeholders’ concerns is to streamline rules while preserving what makes Europe’s sustainability framework effective, workable and credible, across both sustainability reporting and due diligence. Simplify where it adds value, but don’t dismantle the tools that investors rely on to assess risk, allocate capital and support the transition. What the market needs now is not another reset, but consistency, continuity and stable implementation: technical adjustments, clear guidance, proportionate regimes and legal stability. The EU must stand by the rules it has put in place, not pull the rug out from under those using them to finance Europe’s future.