Latest news with #JURI
Forbes
8 hours ago
- Business
- Forbes
European Parliament Wants To Reduce Cost Of Sustainability Reporting Requirements
People walk by a European Union flag (Photo by) The European Parliament is debating legislation to reduce sustainability reporting requirements in the European Union. The original proposal of the European Commission included a drastic reduction of the scope of a pair of sustainability reporting directives. The member leading the drafting of the Parliament's has released his draft proposal, calling for even more cuts, alarming sustainability activists and emboldening business interests. That proposal was debated in the June 24 meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs, known as JURI. As part of the European Green Deal, a trilogy of directives were passed by the EU to force businesses to address climate change and report greenhouse gas missions. However, the cost of these proposals on businesses and the broader impact on the EU economy became a theme during the 2024 elections. The shift to the right in EU politics embolden opponents. As a result, the Commission proposed a package of new directives to 'reduce the burden' on businesses. The Omnibus Simplification Package was officially adopted by the Commission in February. The proposal is being debated in the Council and the Parliament. In the Parliament, the debate is public and working through multiple committees, giving interest parties and MEPs the opportunity to voice their opinions. JURI, is the primary committee that will produce the legislation that will be sent to the full Parliament for a vote. MEP Jörgen Warborn, of the European People's Party, has been designated as the rapporteur to lead the drafting of the final legislation. Warborn's draft report was made public on June 6. The draft includes 82 proposed amendments. During the June 24 JURI meeting, the Committee addressed the proposed amendments. Warburn was given the opportunity to share his initial proposal and the shadow rapporteurs gave initial comments. Jörgen Warborn Warburn stated the EPP's goal in the proposal. 'We would like to go further in cutting costs, because we need to strengthen European competitiveness in order to create long-term prosperity for European citizens.' To justify the need for cuts, he stated "sustainability rests on three pillars: the environmental pillar, the social pillar, and the economic pillar… if one breaks, the stretcher collapses." He then outlined his 10 key priorities in the proposal: MEP Lara Wolters, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats Lara Wolters, of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), stated her group felt the 'Commission proposal was extremely rushed and deeply flawed.' She says that the proposal is not focused on removing the administrative burden, rather on removing accountability. She did not get into the specifics of the S&D proposal, but gave a vigorous counterargument to reductions. Countering the EPP's push to lower costs on businesses, she stated that she 'is not inspired by this… It is our job to weigh public versus private interests. But if costs are all the EPP cares about at the moment, then at least let us be honest that the costs are merely being displaced. Costs reduced for companies here are costs that the world will need to shoulder anyway. Climate denial comes at a cost. So does environmental degradation, exploitation, and inequality. So does feeding populism.' MEP Pascal Canfin, The Renew Group Pascal Canfin, of the Renew Europe Group, stated that he agrees with the EPP on the auditing of the CSRD report. He believes there is room to negotiation on that topic and reduce cost beyond the Commission proposal. He stated that he agrees in cost reduction, but that the EPP proposal does not deliver that. Focusing on capital market union, he said investors need data. The reduction in of the CSRD may save costs on paper, but will increase costs in the long term as investors spend more to gather the data. He will be offering amendments to address those concerns. Renew will also present amendments to address the single market approach and what he views as conflict with the restriction on civil liability causing market fragmentation. He also took issue with the application of the 3000 employee threshold to non-EU companies, claiming that would exempt nearly all non-EU companies from the scope. Interestingly, he stated the calculation of the employee count for non-EU companies is not based on total employees in the EU, rather total employees in a member state. MEP Kira Marie Peter-Hansen, Group of the Greens/ European Free Alliance (EFA) Kira Peter-Hansen, of the Group of the Greens/ European Free Alliance (EFA), stated that they agree with simplification and "reporting must be both meaningful and manageable.' However, she agrees with the S&D that the Omnibus and the EPP proposals go beyond simplification into deregulation. She pointed out that the raised thresholds not only eliminate 80% of the companies, but also some member states as they do not have any companies large enough to comply. She encouraged the use of the EFRAG data to simplify the data points in the European Sustainability Reporting Standards to simplify reporting requirements without 'weakening impact.' She accused the EPP of 'choosing populistic, symbolic changes over actual needed changes that would benefit from a revision." Further, she stated that 'removing climate transition plans completely is not just wrong, it is irresponsible.' She encouraged the adoption of a risk-based approach over the Commission proposal of mapping the value chain, claiming it would increase costs for companies. Finally, she objected to the removal of civil liability in the CSDDD. MEP Arash Saeidi, The Left Group Arash Saeidi, of The Left, opened by stated that 'there are men, women, and children whose rights are being breached and they're just being seen as cogs in the wheel of a production - modern slavery, textiles workers, forced labor to produce our electronics.. workers killed on sites. The CSDDD is designed to put an end to impunity and finally holding companies legally accountable from environmental damage and infringement of human rights.' He stated that The Left will present a proposal to reject all the proposed changes and stay with the existing text in the CSRD and CSDDD. Political parties and MEP had until June 27 to submit amendments. On July 15, the shadow rapporteurs will meet to discus the amendments and begin negotiations. To pass, the proposal needs majority support. Committee opinions are being drafted by Economic and Monetary Affairs, known as ECON, Environment, Climate and Food Safety, known as ENVI, Foreign Affairs, known as AFET, International Trade, known as INTA, and Employment and Social Affairs, known as EMPL. Those will be sent to JURI for consideration. I suspect Warborn's proposal is a negotiation tactic. By promoting a position that is more extreme than the original Commission proposal, the EPP has room to negotiate. However, the recent proposal by the Council was also to the right of the Commission. The final Parliament proposal may end up being the middle ground. JURI is expected to adopt the final language to reduce the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive on October 13. Following the vote of the Parliament, designated representatives from the Parliament, Council, and Commission will enter into "trilogue" negotiations. The proposals from each of the three bodies will vary. The trilogue will negotiate the differences to produce a final directive. That directive will be sent to the Council and Parliament for a final vote in December or January.
Euronews
3 days ago
- Business
- Euronews
MEPs vote for Parliament to sue Commission over €150bn defence scheme
The European Parliament's legal affairs (JURI) committee on Tuesday recommended that the institution takes the Commission to court for bypassing MEPs to set up a €150 billion loan programme to boost defence spending across the bloc. The motion was approved in a secret vote with 20 out of 23 votes in favour. Roberta Metsola, the president of the European Parliament, now has to decide whether to follow JURI's recommendation. Euronews has contacted Metsola's cabinet for comment. Metsola had in early May warned her counterpart in the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, that a lawsuit could be pending if the EU executive didn't amend the legal basis it used to set up the SAFE programme The Commission has invoked Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to set up SAFE which allows member states to directly approve a Commission proposal "if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products" or if a member state is "seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control". Despite the threat, the Commission stuck to its argument and member states approved the SAFE regulation later that same month. A spokesperson for the Commission reiterated in a statement to Euronews that it stands firm in its belief that it has chosen the right legal basis because "Europe faces an unprecedented security threat". "The Commission will always be available to explain why Article 122 TFEU has been chosen as the appropriate legal basis," Thomas Regnier added Under the programme, the Commission will raise up to €150 billion on the market to then loan the money to member states for defence investments. It is a key plank of the Commission's 'Readiness 2030' proposal that aims to see hundreds of billions of euros invested into defence across the EU before the end of the decade, when some intelligence agencies believe Russia could be in a position to attack a European country. In her letter to von der Leyen, Metsola had stressed that "the European Parliament is not questioning the merits of this proposal for a regulation," but is instead "deeply concerned" that its adoption without a proper legal basis would be "putting at risk democratic legitimacy by undermining Parliament's legislative and scrutiny functions". Article 122 was previously used by the Commission to react swiftly to the COVID-19 pandemic and to speed up the permits for renewable energy during the height of the energy crisis. To access SAFE, member states now have to work on and submit plans detailing their projects. To be successful, they need to submit projects involving at least two member states (or a qualifying third county), while a European preference whereby two-thirds of the value of the project must be manufactured in Europe also applies. Funding for SAFE is expected to start in early 2026.
Forbes
05-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Committee Meetings Show Division On Future Of Sustainability Reporting In EU
European flag in close up, in front of blue sky The future of sustainability reporting in the European Union is in flux as the Parliament debates an omnibus bill aimed at 'reducing the burden on businesses.' The Commission proposed Omnibus Simplification Package greating reduces the requirements in both the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directives. As the legislative process unfolds in the Parliament, various committees are drafting opinions in an attempt to influence the final bill. Reforms to the CSDDD and the CSRD were proposed by the Commission in February, then sent to the Council and the Parliament for approval. In the Parliament, the Committee on Legal Affairs, known as JURI, is the primary committee to produce the legislation that will be sent to the full Parliament for a vote. However, related committees will draft opinions to be considered by JURI during drafting the process. Committee opinions will be drafted by Economic and Monetary Affairs, known as ECON, Environment, Climate and Food Safety, known as ENVI, Foreign Affairs, known as AFET, International Trade, known as INTA, and Employment and Social Affairs, known as EMPL. In each committee, a rapporteur will lead the drafting process. Shadow rapporteurs are designated by political groups to represent them in the debate process. While the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs will lead the discussions, committee members are able to submit individual proposed amendments. Committees are slowly releasing the proposals as the deadline for submission passes. So far, ECON published 514 proposed amendments and ENVI posted 473. EMPL posted a draft opinion with 49 proposed amendments, but has not posted the member proposals yet. The amendments change the language of the Omnibus Simplification Package as proposed by the Commission. The volume of amendments is less a function of diverse opinions as it is a procedural step. Rather than offering sweeping amendments that encompass the overall vision of a MEP or Party, every change to every subparagraph is offered in a separate amendment. The EMPL draft opinion demonstrates how one political party, The Left, produced 49 proposed amendments in a single proposal. During the drafting process, the issue is discussed in committee meetings, before a final draft is voted on. A far cry from the spirited debates witnessed in some legislative bodies, the Parliament's committee meetings are scripted affairs with a set order. Most members read prepared statements devoid of passion, others inject moments of strong advocacy. The discussions in the meetings serve as an opportunity for committee members to make public statements, rather than a place where negotiations take place. However, they provide valuable insight. Both ECON and EMPL held regular meetings on June 4 that included the topic of the omnibus. Janusz LEWANDOWSKI during a meeting of Committee on Budgets of the European Parliament (Photo by ... More MARTIN BERTRAND/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images) The ECON meeting is available on the European Parliament's website, starting at 15:47. The deadline for committee members to submit amendments passed and the committee has entered into the drafting stage. Given the high volume of proposed amendments, and the polarized views, it is not surprising that members are in conflict over the direction of the committee's opinion. Notably, the draft opinion has not been circulated publicly, but it appears members of the committee have seen a copy. Janusz Lewandowski, of the Group of European People's Party, is the rapporteur for the ECON committee's opinion. He was originally elected of the European Parliament in 2004, serving until 2007. From 2009 to 2014, he was a member of the Commission. He returned to the Parliament in 2009, where he continues to serve. As a result, he has a long institutional memory of developments with the EU. 'Being the world champion in sustainability does not mean that we need to be the world leader in reporting bureaucracy.' Lewandowski invoked that experience in his presentation to the committee. He noted that the omnibus package to reform the CSRD and the CSDDD is only the first of a series of proposals coming 'to make the business environment in Europe more business friendly.' He painted a picture of Europe seeing increased red tape and being less competitive. He claimed that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for Displaced Workers has been 'activated more and more often to compensate for the loses of jobs in Europe.' He went on to state that the EU 'economy is growing slower than our competitors. The over regulation is hampering the ability to innovate and invest... Businesses must be focused on business and not reporting… Simplification does not mean abandoning of our climate and environmental sensitivity. Our environmental ambitions should remain the most climate friendly content and most social content on our planet. We have mistaken…our commitment to the European Green Deal with over regulation… Being the world champion in sustainability does not mean that we need to be the world leader in reporting bureaucracy.' Looking at the proposed scope, he wants alignment between the CSRD and the CSDDD. Further, he stated that he agrees with changes that limit application to more than 3000 employees with net turnover of €450 million, because businesses of that size have the resources to meet the challenges of strong reporting requirements. He also wants clarification that the Taxonomy is voluntary. Looking at sustainability reporting standards, he noted that there are currently 1,000 data points, a standard that he believes is far too cumbersome for businesses. Other members of the committee, serving as shadow rapporteurs, were given the opportunity to comment. Their statements aligned with arguments made in their previously filed amendments. Francisco Assis, of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, raised objections to undoing the CSDDD within a year of initial passage. He stated he is favor of reasonable changes, not gutting the legislation. He noted that only 1000 companies will have to comply with the legislation. He state his party welcomes small changes to the thresholds and changes to the impacts on SMEs. Assis took issue with Lewansowski's approach as rapporteur, noting that none of the S&D's amendments have been considered. He asked for a different approach, or his party will not be able to sign off on the opinion. 'We cannot sacrifice our businesses in the name of green religion.' Pierre Pimpie, of the Patriots for Europe Group, called for the full repeal of the CSRD and the CSDDD. He said he did not understand why the Parliament is debating details, despite seeing the 'disastrous' effect the original directives are having. He stated, through a translator, 'we cannot sacrifice our businesses in the name of green religion.' Giovanni Crosetto, of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, stated their support for the omnibus proposal and called for further simplification. He also called for the repeal of the CSDDD. He argued that the data should not be made publicly available where it could cause additional legal liabilities. Pascal Canfin, of Renew Europe, who is also a shadow rapporteur for JURI, criticized the direction taken by the EPP. Addressing the politics, he said, through a translator, it was a choice between 'a simplification process that is pro-European or will the EPP side with the extreme right as part of the Venezuela coalition.' Speaking on behalf of Renew, he stated they are in favor of simplification in terms of audits and holdings. However, they do not want to undo the CSRD or CSDDD. They want businesses to be on the same page, using the same grammar and standards, to describe their activities. 'What about the cost for workers? What about the pollution that is caused? What about those that are exploited to death by multi-internationals who push the logic of profits to the very end?' Manon Aubry, of The Left, offered the most animated argument. She stated, through a translator, that the process was a sad one. 'Paragraph by paragraph, chapter by chapter, you are gutting what we adopted just a year ago… Hours and hours, days and nights, were spent to try to reach a compromise. We barely adopted it, and now it is being called into question.' She directly challenged Lewansowski's previous statements on the cost for businesses, saying 'what about the cost for workers? What about the pollution that is caused? What about those that are exploited to death by multi-internationals who push the logic of profits to the very end?' 'The due diligence directive was supposed to end impunity. It was supposed ensure that companies are finally held legally accountable for their environmental damage and for their human rights abuses.' She stated that The Left is against the proposed changes, pointing to their proposed amendments that leave the CSRD and CSDDD intact. Chrisophe Gomart, of the European People's Party, stated that people are starting to get that Europe is in an economic tailspin. In 2008, GDP in Europe was the same as the GDP in the U.S. Now, it is 40% less. He blamed this on over regulation of business. He called not only for simplification of the CSRD and other regulations, but also the full repeal of the CSDDD. Lewansowski was given the closing statement. He stated that there appears to be agreement on simplification. He stated that 'Europe will remain the most socially sensitive and most climate sensitive on the planet', but they must try to make Europe more competitive. He stated that the work to find a compromise on the draft opinion is difficult, but he remains optimistic that reasonable compromise can be obtained. Based on comments by the committee chair, it appears the final vote on the ECON opinion will occur on July 15. The future of the omnibus simplification package was also discussed at the June 4 EMPL committee meeting. The tone was drastically different from ECON, as the committee chair Li Andersson, of The Left, also serves as the rapporteur for the opinion. The exchange is available on the Parliament's website starting at 9:34. Li ANDERSSON during an exchange of views at the meeting of Committee on Economic and Monetary ... More Affairs in the European Parliament on 28th January 2025. (Photo by Martin Bertrand / Hans Lucas / Hans Lucas via AFP) Andersson took a different approach, releasing her proposed draft as part of the meeting documents. However, the draft is clearly her vision, and was released before the deadline for committee members to offer their amendments. Members had until June 3 to submit proposed amendments, but those have yet to be made public. Andersson began the discussion, stating that she hoped the EMPL opinion will have a significant impact on the final JURI proposal. She echoed sentiments that simplification is needed, but she disagrees with the Commission's proposal. She said the focus of EMPL should be on 'the risk of weakening victim's protection… in this case, victims of force labor or child labor.' She also wants to focus on the Commission's proposal to exclude parts of the value chain in the CSDDD. Maravillas Abadía Jover, of the EPP, called for harmonization of sustainability regulations and highlighted the need to protect SMEs. Mariateresa Vivaldini, of the ECR, also addressed the impact of red tape on SMEs. She called for clarity and consistency in the regulations. Nikola Bartůšek, of PfE, stated that the EU needs to support 'production, growth, prosperity, and jobs. Now more than ever, it is crucial that we cut back the bureaucracy that is suffocating our businesses across Europe… We were right when we warned that over regulation in the name of sustainability is a heavy burden on our companies, our workers, our families, and all European citizens." Jana Toom, of Renew, acknowledged calls by businesses relating to the overly burdensom and costly nature of the current sustainability reporting requirements. However, she stated that simplification must be done in a way that the objectives of the CSRD and CSDDD can be achieved. She took issue with three changes to the CSDDD proposed by the Commission. First, the removal of the requirment for companies to terminate a 'business relationship in case of severe misconduct.' She stated that it must be assumed some of these cases of severe misconduct include child labor and must stay in the directive. Second, is 'the removal of the provision in producing a EU-wide, hamonized, civil liability regime.' She argued that removal of the standard will result in each member stating hagint their own civil liability requirments, resulting in 27 jurisdictions for businesses to comply. She states this will allow for forum shopping, or a tactic by attorneys to bring litigation in courts where they are likely to get the best results. Third, she objected to the reduction of the scope of responsibility along the value chain. The current proposal calls for a limitation to direct partners, while the original CSDDD included indirect business parters as well. Andersson did not provide a timeline for when a vote may occur on the EMPL opinion. However, it is most likely to occur at either the June 25 or July 14 meetings. The opinions by the committees will be sent to JURI for consideration. JURI is expected to approve the changes to the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive on Septmeber 13.
Forbes
31-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Key Dates To Watch In EU Debate On Sustainability Reporting
European Union flags in front of the blurred European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium The requirements for sustainability reporting in the European Union are on the verge of being reduced as legislators consider sweeping changes to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. The Commission proposed reforms in the Omnibus Simplification Package. Now, those proposals are being debated in the Parliament and Council in anticipation of final approval by the end of 2025. However, with so many moving parts, it is difficult to keep track of when important votes may happen. Reforms to the CSDDD, also known as the CS3D, and the CSRD were proposed by the Commission in February, then sent to the Council and the Parliament for approval. The Council's deliberations are mostly behind closed doors. In the Parliament, the debate is public and working through multiple committees, giving interest parties and MEPs the opportunity to voice their opinions. The Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs, known as JURI, is the primary committee that will produce the legislation that will be sent to the full Parliament for a vote. However, related committees will draft opinions to be considered during the process. Both the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, known as ECON, and the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, known as ENVI, posted amendments proposed by their respective members. ECON received 514 proposed amendments while ENVI received 473. Other committees that will be drafting opinions are Foreign Affairs, known as AFET, International Trade, known as INTA, and Employment and Social Affairs, known as EMPL. While AFET and INTA have not released any documents, EMPL has posted their draft opinion with 49 proposed amendments. Below are important dates to watch in the legislative process. The most important committee to follow will be JURI. June 3 - 5: Committee meetings for JURI, ECON, ENVI, EMPL, and AFET. For now, the Omnibus is not on the agenda for JURI. However, June 4 is the anticipated date for JURI to release the amendments proposed by committee members. EMPL will meet and vote on their draft opinion on June 4. EMPL members have until June 3 to offer amendments. ECON will meet and vote on their proposed amendments on June 4. With 514 proposed amendments, it is unclear how the committee will approach the opinion. The agendas for AFET, ECON, and ENVI do not include the omnibus. June 23 - 26: Committee meetings for JURI, ECON, ENVI, EMPL, AFET, INTA. June 27: Deadline for political groups to offer amendments. Following the deadline for amendments, the Parliament will enter into intergroup negotiations. These are 'informal exchanges' organized by the chairs of the political groups to allow MEPs to discuss proposals. July 14 - 15, September 1, and September 22 - 23: JURI Committee meetings. October 13: This is final regular JURI Committee meeting and the anticipated date that the Parliament will make their final vote on the Omnibus. October - December: Trilogue. Following the vote of the Parliament, designated representatives from the Parliament, Council, and Commission will enter into "trilogue" negotiations. The proposals from each of the three bodies will vary. The trilogue will negotiate the differences to produce a final directive. That directive will be sent to the Council and Parliament for a final vote. October 31: EFRAG will submit revised European Sustainability Reporting Standards to the Commission. These standards will be adopted by the Commission after the final passage of the omnibus. December: Final vote in Council and Parliament. The Commission is pushing hard for the Omnibus Simplification Package to be adopted by the end of 2025. However, there is a possibility it spills over into early 2026.
Euronews
09-04-2025
- Business
- Euronews
EU Tech Commissioner defends scrapping of AI Liability rules
ADVERTISEMENT The AI Liability Directive would not have led to one set of uniform rules across the EU, Henna Virkkunen, the EU Commissioner responsible for tech, told members of the European Parliament's Legal Affairs committee (JURI) on Wednesday. 'With a directive, member states implement the rules in different ways,' Virkkunen said. 'I favour more regulations to make sure we have one single market,' she added, referring to the legal instrument that is equally binding across all member states. The committee members had ask ed the Commission why it withdrew the AI Liability Directive after the EU executive said it saw 'no foreseeable agreement' on the proposal in its 2025 work program published in February. The rules were intended to offer consumers a harmonised means of redress when they experience harm arising from AI products or services. They were proposed in 2022 but no significant progress has been made since. 'We need to fully implement the AI Act before we propose new rules – in the last years the European Commission has proposed a lot of digital rules and we need to simplify them before presenting something new,' Virkkunen said. Related EU Commission presents plans to boost AI uptake, protect critical sectors EU Commission to launch consultation on grand AI strategy Lawmakers have been divided over the need for the rules. The rapporteur in JURI Axel Voss (Germany/EPP), wants to keep working on the dossier. His counterpart in the Internal Market and Consumer Protection committee (IMCO), Kosma Złotowski (Poland/ECR), said in his draft opinion published in January that the 'adoption of an AI Liability Directive at this stage is premature and unnecessary.' Voss said in the JURI hearing on Wednesday that simplification is a trend 'but liability rules are needed anyway to create a true digital single market'. Sergey Lagodinsky (Germany/Greens) said he was 'very puzzled' about the reasons for withdrawal and said that co-legislators needed to be consulted. On the other hand, both Diego Solier (Spain/ECR) and Svenja Hahn (Germany/Renew) – members of the IMCO committee -- spoke out in favour of the Commission decision. Hahn said that the existing product liability laws and national tort laws are enough and that consumers have enough opportunities to file claims. In a letter to Virkkunen sent earlier this week, civil society and consumer groups called upon the Commission to work on new AI liability rules to fill 'legal gaps'. The Commission has until August to make a final decision on the matter.
