The EU Parliament Delays the Omnibus I Deal. What’s Next for Europe’s Sustainability Rules?
The European Parliament’s decision yesterday to reject the Legal Affairs Committee’s (JURI) negotiating mandate on the Omnibus I package marks one of the most consequential developments in the evolution of Europe’s sustainability framework. What at first may appear a procedural setback is, in reality, a signal of deep political contention about the balance between regulatory ambition and economic pragmatism. It exposes diverging views within the EU on how fast, how broadly, and how stringently companies should be held to sustainability obligations under laws such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD or CS3D).
A Narrow but Symbolic Vote
On 22 October 2025, members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voted 318 to 309 against the JURI Committee’s mandate to begin interinstitutional negotiations on the Commission’s proposed Omnibus I adjustments. Another 34 members abstained, underscoring how finely balanced the political debate has become. The rejection does not kill the package, but it resets the process: Parliament will now reopen the text for amendments, which are expected to be debated during the mid-November 2025 plenary session, before any trilogue with the Council and Commission can resume.
At stake is not a single piece of legislation but rather a bundle of technical changes designed to “simplify” and “rationalize” the EU’s sustainability framework. In practice, however, these revisions touch the core architecture of how companies disclose, verify, and act on sustainability information.
What the Omnibus I Package Seeks to Change
The Omnibus I proposal was presented by the European Commission earlier this year as part of its “simplification for competitiveness” agenda. It aims to streamline sustainability obligations, reduce administrative burdens for small and mid-sized enterprises, and harmonize overlaps across the CSRD, the CSDDD, and the EU Taxonomy Regulation.
Its most debated element is the adjustment of thresholds determining which companies fall within the mandatory reporting or due diligence scope. Under the Commission’s draft, the employee and turnover thresholds would rise substantially, meaning tens of thousands of smaller companies would no longer be required to publish detailed sustainability reports or conduct due diligence on human rights and environmental risks. Critics argue that this effectively removes nearly 90 percent of the companies initially covered by the CSRD’s later application waves.
The Commission defended the change as a pragmatic response to implementation fatigue, noting that many Member States and industry groups had requested more time and clarity following the adoption of the “Stop-the-Clock Directive,” which already delayed the application calendar for sustainability reporting. That directive postponed the reporting obligations of so-called “wave 2 and 3” entities—mainly non-listed large companies and listed SMEs—to give the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) more time to finalise sector-specific standards and digital tagging tools.
Why Parliament Pushed Back
The narrow rejection of the mandate reveals an ideological fault line between MEPs seeking to safeguard the EU’s leadership on sustainability and those prioritising competitiveness amid economic strain. Pro-sustainability lawmakers from the Greens, Socialists, and some Renew Europe members argued that the proposed relaxations go too far, diluting the EU’s credibility as a global standard-setter for responsible business conduct. They warned that scaling back scope and liability would signal retreat just as other jurisdictions, from Japan to Brazil, are drafting disclosure and due diligence rules inspired by the EU model.
By contrast, more conservative and centrist members viewed the vote as an opportunity to “rebalance ambition with realism.” They argue that over-regulation risks deterring investment and driving companies out of Europe’s capital markets. Their narrative aligns with a growing sentiment within several national governments that excessive compliance costs could hinder small-business growth, particularly in energy-intensive sectors facing rising costs from the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM).
Implications for Businesses
For companies already in wave 1 of the CSRD—mainly large listed entities with more than 500 employees—the rejection of the mandate changes little. Their reporting obligations for the 2024 financial year, to be published in 2025, remain fully in force. But for those in later waves, uncertainty now looms.
If the Omnibus I package is eventually watered down or delayed further, mid-sized firms may enjoy an extended reprieve from mandatory sustainability reporting and due diligence. However, that reprieve may prove a double-edged sword. Many investors, lenders, and large buyers already require supply-chain partners to provide ESG data irrespective of legal thresholds. Voluntary alignment with recognised standards—such as the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards (IFRS S1 and S2) or the forthcoming Voluntary SME Standard (VSME) proposed by the Commission—may therefore remain a strategic necessity rather than an ethical choice.
Financial institutions, meanwhile, face a potential data scarcity problem. If fewer companies are required to report under CSRD, investors will lose access to comparable, verified ESG information essential for sustainable finance obligations under the EU Taxonomy and Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR). This could reduce transparency across capital markets and complicate portfolio alignment with climate targets.
Repercussions for the EU’s Global Standing
Beyond the technicalities, the political symbolism of the rejection is striking. The EU has long branded itself the world’s leader in sustainability governance, exporting its regulatory philosophy through “the Brussels Effect.” The CSRD and CSDDD were intended as the cornerstone of that ambition, establishing Europe as the global benchmark for non-financial disclosure and corporate accountability.
Now, critics fear that repeated delays and attempts to scale down obligations risk eroding that leadership. Civil-society organisations, including WWF Europe and the European Coalition for Corporate Justice, have warned that watering down liability provisions could weaken access to justice for victims of environmental and human-rights harms. Investor associations, such as Eurosif, caution that narrowing the scope undermines the integrity of sustainable finance itself, which depends on reliable data from a critical mass of companies.
At the same time, industry groups welcome what they see as a more proportionate approach. BusinessEurope and several national chambers of commerce argue that simplification is necessary to prevent regulatory fatigue, especially as the EU faces economic headwinds and global competition from the United States and Asia. The tension between ambition and feasibility, they insist, must be resolved before the next wave of legislative deadlines.
The Road Ahead
The next decisive moment arrives in mid-November 2025, when Parliament is expected to vote on the revised amendments. Should MEPs reach consensus, the trilogue phase—negotiations between Parliament, Council, and Commission—could resume before the year ends. However, given the divided vote and competing national interests, few observers expect a swift resolution. Realistically, the final adoption of the Omnibus I package may slip into early 2026.
In the interim, companies are advised not to interpret the delay as a pause on preparation. Regulatory evolution may slow, but it is unlikely to reverse. The core principles of double materiality, due diligence, and transparent assurance are embedded in EU law and aligned with global momentum, from the ISSB’s disclosure standards to the G20’s Sustainable Finance Roadmap.
Strategic Takeaways
This moment offers a window for reflection. For policymakers, it is a reminder that Europe’s leadership in sustainability cannot rest solely on legislative ambition; it must also deliver clarity, coherence, and proportionality. For businesses, it is a call to act voluntarily rather than reactively. Those that continue to invest in robust ESG systems, supply-chain traceability, and transparent reporting will retain investor confidence even as legal thresholds fluctuate.
For investors and financial markets, engagement becomes critical. They must push for transparency, even in the absence of strict mandates, to ensure the continuity of sustainable finance and maintain the credibility of Europe’s green transition.
In Summary
The rejection of the Omnibus I mandate does not mark the end of the EU’s sustainability journey, but it exposes the complexity of reconciling economic competitiveness with environmental and social responsibility. It highlights the tension between short-term political pressures and long-term structural change.
Whether Europe emerges from this debate with a stronger, more credible sustainability framework or a diluted one will depend on how the coming months unfold. What is clear is that sustainability is no longer a peripheral issue—it is central to the continent’s economic identity and global influence.
Until the dust settles, companies should continue preparing, disclosing, and improving. The pace of lawmaking may slow, but the direction of travel remains unmistakable: toward greater accountability, transparency, and resilience in the era of sustainable capitalism.
Stay Ahead of the ESG Curve
At The ESG Institute, we empower professionals and organizations to navigate the world’s evolving sustainability regulations with clarity and confidence. From the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and EU Taxonomy, to carbon markets, climate law, sustainable finance, and ESG strategy, our accredited online programs and advisory services are designed to turn compliance into opportunity.
Our Professional Certificate in CSRD provides in-depth, practical guidance on the EU’s sustainability disclosure requirements, helping companies, consultants, and investors understand the latest ESRS standards, assurance obligations, and reporting timelines.
Explore our globally recognized diplomas and certificates, all fully online and CPD-accredited.
👉 Learn more at www.the-esg-institute.org and join a growing community of sustainability leaders shaping a better future.
