logo

EU's red tape cuts leave big businesses wanting more

Zawya21-03-2025
BRUSSELS - Austrian manufacturer RHI Magnesita spends about 1 million euros of its roughly 400 million euros earnings a year ensuring it complies with EU rules on corporate sustainability. A first wave of reforms to peel back layers of red tape will do little to cut that bill, it says.
The European Union's 52-page 'Simplification Omnibus', which would exempt smaller companies from sustainability reporting and pare back obligations on supply chain transparency, has left bigger companies like RHI Magnesita frustrated and pushing for more.
The reforms were billed as a drive to remove layers of bureaucracy that cost European businesses time and money and set them at a disadvantage against cheaper rivals in China and in the U.S. where the Trump administration is aggressively rolling back regulation to spur growth.
"It looks, at least at first glance, that it actually doesn't change very much," RHI Magnesita's chief executive Stefan Borgas told Reuters.
RHI Magnesita says it conducts an additional audit and employs three or four full-time employees to collect the amount of data required by the EU law, which asks companies to report on more than 1,000 sustainability data points.
The firm's global business spans 65 production sites and employs 20,000 staff. It reported adjusted earnings before tax, interest and amortization of 407 million euros in 2024.
February's proposals were part of a broader package of EU reforms aimed at bolstering European competitiveness and encouraging industry to decarbonise.
EU leaders discussed further rounds of reforms at a summit in Brussels on Thursday, where they published a joint statement asking the Commission to target rules around industrial decarbonisation and defence next.
The European Commission's proposals to curb sustainability rules will bring relief to businesses employing fewer than 1,000 staff, which the plans would exempt from the reporting rules. It forecasts companies will save 4.4 billion euros ($4.77 billion) per year.
Larger companies are likely to benefit more from proposed changes to supply chain transparency rules, which the Commission says would more than halve the estimated annual compliance costs of 480,000 euros for the largest companies.
Still, big business remains unconvinced. The AFEP group of the 118 biggest private businesses in France said the proposals "do not correct the bureaucratic burden" for larger companies.
Gwenaelle Avice Huet, Europe head of French blue-chip Schneider Electric, with annual revenues of 38 billion euros, said big companies have "been a little bit set aside". However, she did welcome the shelving of plans to introduce more specific reporting for each sector.
"At least this one has been postponed," Huet said. "But this is really minimal. We aren't talking about simplification."
DIVISIONS OVER DEREGULATION
Not everyone is in favour of the deregulation drive. Opponents say it reduces corporate accountability and the ability to root out issues around human rights or the environment in large firms' operations. Some investors say the changes would make it harder to decide where to put money to help the bloc reach its climate goals.
RHI Magnesita boss Borgas said the time and costs involved for the fireproof materials manufacturer to fulfil its obligations are resources that "at the end of the day, we cannot invest in CO2 emission reductions."
There is growing recognition amongst some European Commissioners that even as the bloc maintains it will not walk back its net zero emission target and other climate goals, excessive red tape is a drain on competitiveness.
"We realised that we created an economy around these new texts with new specialists, new companies, consulting firms," European Commission industry chief Stephane Sejourne said, of the sweeping nature of sustainability laws, prior to the proposed changes.
Europe-wide industry group BusinessEurope said its members expected the U.S. 'deregulation agenda' to divert investment away from Europe.
Further 'simplification' packages for autos and farming regulations are already in the works.
"In a way, this proposal opens the door for wish lists for more changes," said one senior EU diplomat.
The proposals must still be approved by European lawmakers, amongst whom there are deep divisions. Earlier proposals seen by Reuters would have loosened the rules further, exempting more companies. They were changed after push back from some Commissioners, EU officials told Reuters.
Some say Brussels is not solely to blame for excessive red tape. Bulgarian EU lawmaker, Radan Kanev, with the European People's Party said much of it was the result of national governments poorly implementing EU rules, creating layers of overlapping EU, national and regional bureaucracy.
A 2024 paper by the Columbia Business School and New York University Shanghai found the economic cost of red tape varies significantly between EU countries - from just 0.1% of GDP in Austria, to 3.9% in France.
"This is a problem which is so deeply connected to what happens in our national bureaucracies that I'm afraid it's not easily solvable," Kanev said. ($1 = 0.9218 euros) (Reporting by Kate Abnett; additional reporting by Lili Bayer and Julia Payne; editing by Richard Lough and Elaine Hardcastle)
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's Tariff War Creates De Facto Counter-Axis Driven By Common Cause
Trump's Tariff War Creates De Facto Counter-Axis Driven By Common Cause

Arabian Post

timean hour ago

  • Arabian Post

Trump's Tariff War Creates De Facto Counter-Axis Driven By Common Cause

By K Raveendran Donald Trump's aggressive tariff regime, launched under the guise of bolstering American strength and reclaiming lost economic ground, has triggered a worldwide response that may ultimately defeat the very goal it seeks to achieve. Framed as a nationalist project to assert America's economic primacy, the tariff war has turned out to be a catalyst for an accelerating global shift away from unipolar US dominance toward a truly multipolar world order. What was once largely speculative—the idea of a global economic architecture not centred on Washington—is now becoming tangible as Trump's trade brinkmanship compels other nations to rethink, regroup, and realign. The essential flaw in Trump's strategy lies in its assumption that the rest of the world would blink first, caving in to American demands under the weight of economic pressure. But the world hasn't blinked. Instead, countries are finding common cause in resisting what they perceive as economic coercion masquerading as negotiation. The result is a fluid yet increasingly coherent realignment of powers—chief among them China, Russia, and India—that is beginning to operate as a de facto counter-axis to the United States. Driven by shared grievances and the common objective of shielding their strategic autonomy, these nations are cooperating more closely in trade, investment, and energy. The irony is that Trump's pursuit of economic supremacy is hastening the erosion of the very system that enabled US dominance for decades. Beijing, long a prime target of Trump's tariffs, has responded with both retaliation and redirection. Rather than capitulating to Washington's demands, China has expanded its outreach to other major economies, particularly in Asia and Africa, while deepening its engagement with Russia and India. The Belt and Road Initiative, initially conceived as a means of global infrastructure connectivity, is now also a tool for economic realignment. As Trump builds tariff walls, China builds roads, ports, and financial networks that bypass the United States. Moscow, for its part, has welcomed this pivot. Isolated by US and European sanctions, Russia sees opportunity in closer ties with China and India, both of which have shown increasing willingness to defy Western pressure. India, though traditionally more aligned with the West and an enthusiastic participant in global liberal markets, has found itself inching toward the emerging non-Western axis. Trump's tariffs on Indian goods, coupled with his administration's threats of secondary sanctions on countries trading with Russia or buying Iranian oil, have forced New Delhi to draw red lines. India's stance on Russian oil, for instance, has been unambiguous: it is a matter of national interest and energy security. Any effort by Washington to curtail these purchases is seen not just as economic interference but as a direct challenge to sovereign decision-making. In retaliation, India has dangled the cancellation of key defence deals, including the proposed purchase of the F-35 fighter jets—a symbolic snub that indicates a broader reassessment of strategic alignment. What makes this realignment especially potent is the breadth of its scope. It is not merely a matter of retaliatory tariffs or diplomatic rhetoric; it includes infrastructure cooperation, technological integration, and long-term investment planning. China and India, despite historic differences, have increased dialogue in recent months on trade facilitation and regional connectivity. Russia's role as a common energy partner and military supplier to both nations gives it leverage in the triangle. And with US credibility as a dependable trade partner being questioned, many smaller nations are also hedging their bets, diversifying their economic relations away from a US-centric model. Even traditional US allies in Europe are uneasy. Germany and France have voiced concerns about the destabilizing effects of Trump's tariffs on global trade norms. The EU is pursuing its own trade treaties with countries like Japan and Vietnam, carving out autonomous space in global commerce that doesn't necessarily involve Washington. At the heart of this geopolitical churn is a growing skepticism toward the idea that the United States can or should dictate the terms of global trade. The Trump administration's belief that economic might translates automatically into negotiating power has ignored the subtle but critical fact that globalisation has made nations more interconnected and interdependent. Trying to weaponise trade may yield short-term leverage, but it also creates lasting rifts and compels partners to seek alternatives. The economic structures of the 21st century no longer afford any single nation the luxury of acting as an economic autocrat without consequences. Furthermore, the economic impact within the United States is more complex and less flattering than the populist rhetoric suggests. While certain domestic industries may benefit from tariff protections, others are suffering from rising input costs and retaliatory measures. American farmers have been hit particularly hard by Chinese tariffs on agricultural imports, prompting the Trump administration to introduce multi-billion dollar bailout packages that, in effect, cancel out the supposed gains of the trade war. Manufacturing, far from being resurgent, is experiencing uncertainty and disruption due to volatility in global supply chains. The idea that tariff wars are 'easy to win' has proven to be one of the most misguided statements of Trump's presidency. Even American multinationals, once eager advocates of 'America First' policies, are quietly relocating parts of their supply chains to countries not caught in the tariff crossfire. This shift not only diminishes the US's leverage but also accelerates the decentralization of economic power. No longer is the American market an irresistible magnet for global commerce; it is increasingly seen as a zone of instability and risk. For many countries, the trade war has been a wake-up call—an impetus to invest in regional blocs, alternative trade corridors, and new financial instruments insulated from US influence. In the broader scheme, what Trump has unwittingly triggered is a reimagination of how global power is structured. The post-Cold War illusion of US-led globalisation is being replaced by a more pluralistic, competitive, and fragmented order. Emerging powers are no longer content to play by rules written in Washington. They are building parallel systems: China's digital yuan aims to reduce dependency on the dollar; India and Russia have revived rupee-rouble trade mechanisms; and regional trade agreements like RCEP are functioning without US participation. What's being born is a new kind of globalization—less hierarchical, more balanced, and far less dependent on any single country. (IPA Service)

India will buy Russian oil despite Trump's threats of penalties
India will buy Russian oil despite Trump's threats of penalties

Gulf Today

time7 hours ago

  • Gulf Today

India will buy Russian oil despite Trump's threats of penalties

India will keep purchasing oil from Russia despite US President Donald Trump's threats of penalties, two Indian government sources said, not wishing to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. 'These are long-term oil contracts,' one of the sources said. 'It is not so simple to just stop buying overnight.' Trump last month indicated in a Truth Social post that India would face additional penalties for purchases of Russian arms and oil. On Friday, Trump told reporters that he had heard that India would no longer be buying oil from Russia. The New York Times on Saturday quoted two unnamed senior Indian officials as saying there had been no change in Indian government policy, with one official saying the government had 'not given any direction to oil companies' to cut back imports from Russia. Reuters reported this week that Indian state refiners stopped buying Russian oil in the past week after discounts narrowed in July. 'On our energy sourcing requirements... we look at what is there available in the markets, what is there on offer, and also what is the prevailing global situation or circumstances,' India's foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal told reporters during a regular briefing on Friday. Jaiswal added that India has a 'steady and time-tested partnership' with Russia, and that New Delhi's relations with various countries stand on their own merit and should not be seen from the prism of a third country. The White House in Washington did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Indian refiners are pulling back from Russian crude as discounts shrink to their lowest since 2022, when Western sanctions were first imposed on Moscow, due to lower Russian exports and steady demand, sources said earlier this week. The country's state refiners — Indian Oil Corp, Hindustan Petroleum Corp, Bharat Petroleum Corp and Mangalore Refinery Petrochemical Ltd - have not sought Russian crude in the past week or so, four sources familiar with the refiners' purchase plans told Reuters. On July 14, Trump threatened 100% tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil unless Moscow reaches a major peace deal with Ukraine. Russia is the top supplier to India, responsible for about 35% of India's overall supplies. Russia continued to be the top oil supplier to India during the first six months of 2025, accounting for about 35% of India's overall supplies, followed by Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. India, the world's third-largest oil importer and consumer, received about 1.75 million barrels per day of Russian oil in January-June this year, up 1% from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by sources. Nayara Energy, a major buyer of Russian oil, was recently sanctioned by the European Union as the refinery is majority-owned by Russian entities, including oil major Rosneft. Last month, Reuters reported that Nayara's chief executive had resigned after the imposition of EU sanctions and company veteran Sergey Denisov had been appointed as CEO. Three vessels laden with oil products from Nayara Energy have yet to discharge their cargoes, hindered by the new EU sanctions on the Russia-backed refiner, Reuters reported late last month. Reuters

Trump orders firing of US official as cracks emerge in jobs market
Trump orders firing of US official as cracks emerge in jobs market

Al Etihad

time9 hours ago

  • Al Etihad

Trump orders firing of US official as cracks emerge in jobs market

2 Aug 2025 19:13 WASHINGTON (AFP)US President Donald Trump said Friday he has ordered the firing of a key economic official, accusing her of manipulating employment data for political reasons after a new report showed cracks in the US jobs job growth missed expectations in July, Labour Department data showed, and revisions to hiring figures in recent months brought them to the weakest levels since the Covid-19 providing evidence, Trump lashed out at the department's commissioner of labour statistics, writing on social media that the jobs numbers "were RIGGED to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad."In a separate post on his Truth Social platform, he charged that Commissioner Erika McEntarfer had "faked" jobs data to boost Democrats' chances of victory in the recent presidential election."McEntarfer said there were only 73,000 Jobs added (a shock!) but, more importantly, that a major mistake was made by them, 258,000 Jobs downward, in the prior two months," Trump said, referring to the latest data for July."Similar things happened in the first part of the year, always to the negative," Trump said, insisting that the world's biggest economy was "booming" under his leadership. He later told reporters, "We need people that we can trust," accusing the economic official of inflating hiring figures under former President Joe Biden's administration.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store