Lead EU lawmaker on sustainability laws proposes more cuts
BRUSSELS, June 12 (Reuters) - The European Union should further slash the number of companies subject to its environmental and corporate sustainability rules, the European Parliament member leading negotiations on the policies said on Thursday.
The European Commission proposed a "simplification omnibus" in February that it said would help European firms compete with foreign rivals by cutting back on sustainability reporting rules and obligations intended to root out abuses in their supply chains.
Those proposals did not go far enough, according to Swedish centre-right lawmaker Jörgen Warborn, who has drafted amendments to scale back the laws further to only cover companies with 3,000 employees or more and over 450 million euros ($521 million) in turnover.
The Commission proposal would exempt companies with fewer than 1,000 employees - already, cutting out more than 80% of the roughly 50,000 companies currently covered by the green reporting rules. The EU counts around 6,000 companies with more than 1,000 employees.
"Europe is falling behind the U.S. and China in the global race for competitiveness. I'm entering this process with a clear ambition: to cut costs for businesses and go further than the Commission on simplification," Warborn said in a statement on Thursday.
His draft proposal must be negotiated in the European Parliament where other lawmakers can propose their own amendments. The Parliament will agree the final changes with EU member countries in the coming months.
Warborn, a member of the centre-right European People's Party lawmaker group, is facing competing calls from some right-wing lawmakers to scrap the policies entirely, and Socialist and Green lawmakers vowing to preserve them.
French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have both demanded the EU scrap the supply chain law.
But the walk-back on ESG rules has met resistance from some investors and campaigners, who have warned it weakens corporate accountability and hurts the bloc's ability to attract more investments towards meeting climate goals.
Warborn said his proposed changes will not weaken Europe's sustainability standards, but rather free up resources that companies can instead invest in innovation.
($1 = 0.8633 euros)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
34 minutes ago
- The Sun
Gemma Atkinson turns to crowdfunding to raise £500k to launch her beauty brand, but angry trolls rage she can ‘do one'
GEMMA Atkinson has sparked controversy after turning to crowdfunding to raise £500,000 to launch her own beauty brand. The actress has already attracted an impressive social media following for her skincare company Gem & Tonic, which aims to provide products to "simplify your beauty regime". 5 5 "Every single product combines scientifically-proven ingredients with mineral rich gemstones," she said. As she prepares to "officially launch" the brand in September 2025, Gemma has decided to try and raise funds through Crowdcube - which asks people to "invest in Europe's best startups". On the Crowdcube page, which has already raised £48,296 from 354 different investors, Gemma says: "We're now looking to raise £500,000 to officially launch in September 2025 to continue the movement and the community we've already started. "If you're looking to invest in a brand with a real community in real demand, you've found yourself a real good gem." The page also highlights some of the company's successes to date, including the fact they made £127,000 in pre-order sales in just three weeks. The equity investment has a share price of 90p and a pre-money valuation of £2.25 million. "The Company had already raised £250,000 prior to the Crowdcube raise," the page reads. "For the avoidance of doubt, this has been included in the pre-money valuation displayed in the pitch." And for those investing in the business, there are various 'rewards' for doing so - all of which start from an investment of £50. Investing £50 will get you a signed thank you card from Gemma, while for £25,000 you'll get to "meet Gemma and have lunch with the G&T team", as well as an investor-only lifetime discount of 15%, a product bundle, an invite to the press launch, lifetime early access to new products and Gemma's signed thank you note. Gemma Atkinson reveals her hit CBeebies show has been AXED after just one series However there's also a warning at the top of the Crowdcube page, which reads: "Don't invest unless you're prepared to lose all the money you invest. "This is a high-risk investment and you are unlikely to be protected if something goes wrong." News of Gemma's crowdfunding efforts quickly made its way onto social media, with trolls using the comments section of the videos to have their say on the controversial move. "Why hasn't she used her own money?" one wrote. "I don't want to Invest of your not engaged to the hilt in every financial way." "Crowd funding to make herself rich," another added. "Ok send me money and I'll start a business!" "So she wants people to help her… doesn't she know about the cost of living crisis us normal people are dealing with?" a third commented. "Over 1/2 mil in her bank - usual rich get richer!" someone else sighed. "Crowd funding? Gemma can do one," another raged. "Bloody hell she has more than most for money!" someone else said. And as another labelled it ridiculous, someone else agreed, writing: "Clearly not confident in her own idea to fully invest herself, putting up her property as collateral. "Guaranteed to fail." "She's got a nerve!" another commented. However, there were those in the comments who came to Gemma's defense. "She isn't making you invest!" one wrote. "I say fair play to her and wish her well." "Think she's asking for £10 as a minimum, which is reasonable," another added. "She's kept her community involved from the get go - naming, scents etc so I don't see the issue." "Shame to see so many women tearing other women down regardless of their status or financial situation!!" a third sighed. "So much hate in the world these days already." 5
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘Worse than anything under the Tories': changes to welfare bill anger disability campaigners
'As a community we feel totally let down and these last-minute concessions do nothing to make up for that,' Andy Mitchell, a disability campaigner and a member of Unite Community, says. 'My friends are scared. Some have spoken about suicide. This is worse than anything that happened under the Tories.' With the government offering major concessions to the welfare bill, ministers will be hoping critics have at last been appeased. But many campaigners have reacted with anger and concern over the changes. Disabled people's organisations, such as Inclusion London, WinVisible and Long Covid Advocacy, have told the Guardian that plans to exempt only existing claimants from the cuts will create a 'two-tier' benefit system that 'condemns' future disabled people to poverty. 'Protecting entitlements for current recipients is the right thing to do and if it's right for current recipients then it has to be the right thing for future claimants too,' says Tracey Lazard, CEO of Inclusion London. 'Even with these concessions, the bill before parliament is not a reform – it's still rationing. There is no moral or economic case for balancing the books on the backs of disabled people. MPs must not condemn future disabled people to the poverty and indignity these devastating planned cuts will cause.' Claire Every, spokesperson for Long Covid Advocacy said: 'A last-minute napkin deal will not assure safety for disabled people. The concessions create an unfair two-tier system – it is unethical to only throw some people under the bus. 'These changes will negatively impact people with long Covid as they discriminate against those with fluctuating disabilities and will see those who contract the illness in the future receive less support than those who fell ill earlier in the pandemic,' she added. Some campaigners warn that a system that treats new and old claimants differently could lead to future legal challenges against the government. 'How can you justify someone with the same impairments getting two different rates of social security payments based solely on [when they applied or how long they've been ill]? Is it even legal?' says Linda Burnip from Disabled People Against Cuts. 'The concessions are ridiculous and [effectively mean] anyone not already ill or disabled in Britain can't become ill or disabled and expect to have enough money to live on in the future.' Others have accused the government of trying to sow division within the disabled community to quell opposition to the bill. 'We refuse the government's divide-and-rule between old and new claimants, and MPs should keep voting against the horrendous cuts they are planning,' says Claire Glasman from WinVisible. 'We won't stop campaigning – new claimants lose out massively across Pip and universal credit, especially women with invisible and fluctuating conditions. Labour is still going after sick and disabled people. 'These offers of concessions are a glimpse into the window of the soul of the government; that they think people are protesting these cuts for their own gain not the wellbeing of all disabled people,' says Cherylee Houston, co-founder of the #TakingThePIP campaign. It is still unclear whether the concessions will protect eligibility for the connecting benefits to Pip, such as carer's allowance, she added. 'We don't agree to anything which doesn't safeguard future disabled people from abject poverty and despair. How can they draw a line to which people who become disabled after a certain date will not receive the support they need?' The government has pledged the entire criteria system will be reviewed in conjunction with disabled people, but disability groups told the Guardian they are concerned any changes from the review will not be made before the bill passes, while MPs will not have sufficient time to consider proposals. 'MPs are going to be voting on these concessions without people having a decent enough time to look and understand them,' says Mitchell. 'One of the points from the amendment was that disabled people hadn't been properly consulted, so how can it be right when these concessions have not been consulted on at all?' 'If concessions are possible, so is proper reform,' added Lazard. 'Fast-tracking a bill with such major consequences is irresponsible and cruel. It denies parliament, disabled people and the public real scrutiny. We urge MPs to stand your ground, stop this dangerous bill and demand better for everyone.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Labour's next reversal must be on non-doms before it's too late
The abolition of the non-dom tax regime could turn out to be the worst decision taken in Rachel Reeves's first Budget. The Chancellor was convinced that few of the 83,000 foreign entrepreneurs and investors would leave the UK after its abolition and that they would still contribute £12bn in taxes over the course of the parliament. The reality is turning out to be starkly different. Non-doms are leaving in their thousands, and taking their tax contributions, investments and potential to create jobs with them. The latest report into the abolition of non-dom status by a former Treasury economist found that more than 10pc of non-doms have already left the UK. This follows analysis from the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) that found that once 25pc of non-doms have departed, the policy will end up actually costing the Treasury money. Tax advisers are predicting that 40pc, possibly more, of non-doms will leave the country. This will have a huge impact on our public finances, leaving the Chancellor with a multibillion-pound shortfall in tax receipts, which every other taxpayer will have to pick up. While Britain is showing these highly productive people the door, other countries are rolling out the tax red carpet. Italy recently introduced a flat tax regime for foreign investors, allowing them to pay a fixed annual payment of €200,000 (£170,000). In Greece, they are charged a flat annual tax of €100,000 if they invest in the country. America is planning to expand its golden visa programme and the UAE has built one of the world's fastest growing and dynamic economies by fostering an exceptionally welcoming environment for international entrepreneurs. As an entrepreneur with investors and clients based internationally, I am acutely aware of how this policy is damaging the UK's standing. Britain has huge advantages that can attract the world's best entrepreneurs to come here, especially our outstanding schools and universities. But the message I hear constantly from those affected by this tax change is that the UK is not somewhere that welcomes them. That perception urgently needs to be addressed. Despite the prevailing narrative that they are not paying their fair share, the somewhat inconvenient facts are very different. Non-doms currently contribute disproportionately to public finances. In 2022-23, the average non-dom paid 21 times more income tax than the median UK worker. They are not just taxpayers, they are economic catalysts. They build businesses, invest in start-ups, create jobs and contribute to philanthropic causes – hospitals, the arts, charities and even football clubs. Their financial footprint extends beyond income tax to VAT, capital gains tax and National Insurance. The CEBR estimates that in 2023 alone, this group generated £7.7bn in total revenue across all tax types and consumer activity. It is unrealistic to expect the Chancellor to backtrack completely on what was a flagship policy, even considering the enormous economic harm it is causing. Another reversal would likely be too embarrassing after the welfare debacle this week. But there are practical steps she can take to ensure Britain has a competitive offer in comparison to other countries, while ensuring these individuals pay their fair share of tax. Two changes would send an important message that Britain wants entrepreneurs and investors here. First, altering the rules so non-doms do not have to pay inheritance tax (IHT) on all their worldwide assets. These are businesses or assets they built away from Britain and before they came here – not only is it excessive overreach, but it is the single most uncompetitive policy a government could implement in a modern highly fluid and global world. The Government should ensure that the value of non-UK assets accrued by non-doms before 2025 will not be included in future IHT assessments. Returning to the rules before this year that ensured these assets were not subject to tax is the crucial first step in winning back confidence in Britain. Second, the Government bodged a Budget measure it thought would attract non-domiciled people to stay - the temporary repatriation facility. This was supposed to enable them to bring all their worldwide capital into the UK at a preferential 12pc rate. The problem is that tax advisers are warning, understandably, that they fear the government will find a way to tax this capital at higher rates in the future – retrospectively. A simple amendment to the next Finance Bill could offer greater certainty and security, but without it, few foreign entrepreneurs will want to risk bringing their global assets into the UK. The real question is whether the UK wants to remain a hub for global capital and entrepreneurship, or whether it's prepared to watch that capital and the entire ecosystem that depends on it move elsewhere. If the Chancellor doesn't fix this issue fast, the question will not be 'how many are leaving?' but 'why would they ever return?'.
