Omnibus Package under scrutiny—but still moving: What the Ombudswoman’s inquiry means for businesses

In February 2025, the European Commission published its Omnibus Sustainability Package – a legislative proposal aimed at easing the regulatory burden on companies with the aim of promoting competitiveness (Omnibus Package). The Omnibus Package includes proposals by the European Commission to amend the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D) and the EU Taxonomy framework. Read our detailed analysis of the Omnibus Package here.

The European Commission's work programme identified simplifying rules and effective implementation as a priority and the European Commission has prioritised the publication of the Omnibus Package by adopting a fast-track approach itself, skipping the usual impact assessment and public consultation processes prior to publishing the proposals. This has raised concerns from civil society and the wider industry about whether the European Commission has been too hasty, thereby departing from the procedural requirements foreseen in the Better Regulation Guidelines.¹

On 21 May 2025, having received complaints from eight civil society organisations, the European Ombudswoman, Teresa Anjinho, announced that she was opening an inquiry into whether the Commission's alleged failure to comply with the Better Regulation Guidelines in preparing the Omnibus Package constitutes maladministration under EU law.

For businesses wondering whether the Ombudswoman’s inquiry will delay or halt the Omnibus Package—the short answer is no. The Omnibus Package continues its journey through the EU’s ordinary legislative procedure, with the European Parliament and European Council free to debate, amend, and adopt it. The inquiry may shape the narrative and prompt the European Commission to clarify or reinforce its justifications, but it is unlikely to affect the Omnibus Package’s progression or timing. In short, scrutiny is intensifying—but the Omnibus rolls on.

NGO complaint and Ombudswoman Inquiry

The complaint filed by eight NGOs states that the manner in which the European Commission prepared the proposals contained in the Omnibus Package constituted maladministration as it bypassed the procedural safeguards typically required under the Better Regulation Guidelines, the Treaty of the European Union (TEU), and the European Climate Law,² particularly by failing to conduct a "proper impact assessment and excluding broad public participation".

Following receipt of the complaint, the European Ombudswoman has launched an inquiry into the European Commission’s handling of the Omnibus Package. The spotlight is now on five key questions:

1. Why was there no public consultation on the proposal?
2. Did the 2023 call for evidence actually cover the substance of the Omnibus Package?
3. Who was consulted—and how were they chosen?
4. Whether it was justified to skip an impact assessment?
5. Was a climate consistency assessment done in line with the European Climate Law?

The European Commission has defended the fast-tracked preparation of the Omnibus Package, citing stakeholder concerns over “complexity and implementation cost” and the need to provide legal certainty for second-wave reporters due to disclose in 2026. Yet the logic is somewhat circular: legal certainty existed before the Omnibus Package was introduced, and uncertainty has arguably increased since. If the European Commission’s primary concern was easing the burden on second-wave reporters, it could have limited its initial proposal to postponing the application date of CSRD and CS3D (i.e. the 'Stop-the-clock' proposal), allowing time for a proper impact assessment before proposing any legislative changes to the content.

What does EU law say about consultations and impact assessments?

Stakeholder engagement is a cornerstone of the EU's decision-making process anchored in Article 11 TEU and reinforced by the 2016 Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making, which commits the European Commission to conduct open and transparent consultations and impact assessments for legislative proposals expected to have significant economic, environmental or social impacts. The involvement of stakeholders over the entire lifecycle of a piece of legislation ensures that the legislative process is transparent, inclusive, and reflective of diverse perspectives.

Additionally, the European Climate Law requires that new policies be assessed for their consistency with the EU’s climate targets (notably the 2050 net-zero goal) before their adoption. This climate consistency assessment is now considered an essential procedural step for initiatives impacting climate policy and must be included in the impact assessment accompanying the proposal. Failure to perform this check (where applicable) could violate the European Climate Law’s provisions and undermine the EU’s commitment to its own environmental objectives. 

Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox

The Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox are non-binding guidelines designed to support the legal framework established under the TEU and the 2016 Interinstitutional Agreement. Their purpose is to ensure a comprehensive, participative, and evidence-based approach to law-making.

The Guidelines stipulate that stakeholder consultations should generally accompany initiatives subject to an impact assessment. While not mandatory in all cases, consultations are strongly encouraged for significant legislative proposals.

The Better Regulation Toolbox offers detailed procedural guidance on conducting impact assessments. These are required for in two principal scenarios:

1. when policy proposals are expected to have significant economic, environmental, or social impacts or involve significant spending; and
2. when the European Commission is considering multiple policy options.

An illustrative list of measures that should be accompanied by an impact assessment as published in the Toolbox includes the 'revision of existing acts' – which the Omnibus Package seeks to do. Importantly, the requirement extends beyond far-reaching proposals to those affecting specific sectors or actors, such as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

Exceptions to these requirements are limited. The European Commission may forgo public consultations or impact assessments in cases of urgency or where the administrative burden would be disproportionate, provided such decisions are transparently justified. Additionally, if anticipated impacts are minimal, cannot be identified ex ante, or when no viable policy alternatives exist, an impact assessment may be deemed unnecessary. In such cases, the European Commission typically issues a Staff Working Document outlining the available evidence and rationale for the proposal.

Omnibus Package: A Shortcut Too Far?

In adopting the Omnibus Package, the European Commission bypassed a full impact assessment, citing urgency. Instead, it issued a Staff Working Document, claiming it followed a methodology akin to a standard assessment. The complaint states that urgency is not a suitable justification as CSRD only begins applying in 2025 to a limited group of companies, and CS3D has yet to take effect.

In addition, with the adoption of the 'Stop-the-clock' proposal of the Omnibus Package (read our briefing here), the application of both directives has been postponed for several categories of companies. This delay affords the European Commission more time to finalise amendments—undermining the case for bypassing the standard consultative process.

The Commission argues it drew on prior consultations from the CSRD and CS3D processes, as well as internal and selective stakeholder input. Yet these earlier assessments were designed to support the introduction of obligations, not their rollback. The Omnibus Package, by contrast, proposes sweeping reductions in scope—cutting the number of in-scope CSRD companies by 80% and scaling back CS3D due diligence requirements.

The Better Regulation Toolbox is clear: impact assessments are required where proposals are likely to produce significant effects. Even when obligations are being simplified or curtailed, these changes produce measurable effects. An impact assessment remains essential to quantify those effects, assess the proportionality of the proposed adjustments, and ensure that policy decisions are grounded in a transparent and evidence-based process.

The Ombudswoman’s inquiry will assess whether the Commission respected both the letter and spirit of EU legislative norms. Central to this is whether the 'urgency' claim holds up—or whether the Commission prioritised speed over procedure.

The Ombudswoman’s role in the Omnibus debate

The Ombudswoman’s inquiry into the Omnibus Sustainability Package is procedurally weighty, but it does not derail the legislative process. Her powers are supervisory, not judicial: she may investigate and recommend, but she cannot annul or suspend a legislative proposal. The Omnibus Package has already entered the EU’s ordinary legislative machinery, having been transmitted to the European Parliament and Council for scrutiny, amendment, and eventual adoption. That process will continue apace, irrespective of the inquiry.

At present, the file is being examined by the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) in the EU Council. Member States have been asked to submit written feedback on the Council's second draft compromise, with a revised version expected in early June. While most Member States have welcomed elements, such as the revision of the ESRS and enhanced protections for trade secrets under the CSRD, some provisions – particularly those concerning penalties and the frequency of due diligence monitoring under the CS3D - have seen mixed responses.

Still, the inquiry casts a long shadow. While it cannot halt the proposal, it has drawn public attention to the Commission’s alleged procedural shortcuts—particularly the absence of a public consultation and impact assessment. The Commission, now under the Ombudswoman’s microscope, may become more inclined to justify its approach, publish additional data, or even introduce a review clause to mollify critics. The inquiry’s influence is indirect but not negligible: it compels the Commission to clarify its rationale, which may in turn shape how Parliament and Council engage with the file.

At the inquiry’s conclusion, the Ombudswoman will likely issue a finding on whether the Commission’s conduct amounted to maladministration—essentially, a failure to meet procedural obligations. Should she find fault, she may recommend remedial steps, such as further consultation or analysis. If the Commission declines to act, the Ombudswoman can escalate the matter to the European Parliament via a special report. This is not without precedent: in 2018, the Ombudswoman issued such a report after the Council ignored recommendations on legislative transparency. The Parliament responded with a resolution endorsing her findings.

By the time any such recommendations materialise, however, the legislative process may be well advanced. The Parliament and Council are under no obligation to address the Ombudswoman’s procedural concerns directly. They may choose to amend the substance of the Omnibus Package or conduct their own assessments, but they are not bound by the inquiry’s outcome.

The broader implications are institutional. The inquiry underscores the reputational risks the Commission faces when it is seen to sidestep consultation or evidence-based policymaking. Going forward, the bar for invoking “urgency” to justify procedural shortcuts may rise. In that sense, the Ombudswoman’s inquiry may not alter the trajectory of the Omnibus Package itself, but it could shape the procedural discipline applied to future reforms across the EU’s broader sustainability framework. Notably, on 12 May 2025, the Commission issued a call for evidence for an impact assessment on the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR)—a move that may reflect heightened sensitivity to procedural scrutiny in the wake of the inquiry. The European Parliament and European Council, too, may become more insistent that proposals—particularly those with sweeping implications—are accompanied by robust impact assessments or, at the very least, a transparent explanation of their absence.