EU sidelines technical experts to accelerate green rule simplification

European Union member states have taken the unusual step of excluding technical experts from formal negotiations on a sweeping overhaul of green regulations, opting instead for a diplomatic fast-track that critics warn will produce poorly drafted legislation. The decision, taken under Poland's presidency of the Council of the EU, reflects a political determination to deliver rapid regulatory relief to businesses, but diplomats and lobbyists involved in the process say it has created a structural blind spot in the very rooms where the laws are being rewritten.

A diplomatic shortcut with consequences

In February the European Commission unveiled its first omnibus simplification package, proposing to reopen several major Green Deal laws simultaneously to cut corporate reporting obligations. The package targets the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), and the EU Taxonomy regulation, all negotiated over years by teams of specialists from national capitals, the European Parliament and the Commission. Now, a new cast of negotiators is examining whether the EU went too far.

Poland, which holds the rotating Council presidency until the end of June, chose not to route the files through the usual working parties staffed by subject-matter experts. Instead it created an ad-hoc task force of senior diplomats known as horizontal attachés, reporting through the Antici Group, the informal body where ambassadors coordinate high-stakes political dossiers. The move was endorsed by European affairs ministers in February and coordinated with the incoming Danish and Cypriot presidencies as a trio arrangement.

The rationale was explicit. "The idea is [that] we need to simplify it as fast as possible, and we cannot repeat the expert discussions and the expert haggling," one EU diplomat involved in the discussions said at the time. But the speed has come at a cost. Several diplomats describe the resulting process as "a mess" because the national envoys assigned to the task force lack technical familiarity with the legislation they are amending.

Experts silenced in the negotiation room

The technical experts have not been removed from the building. They sit in the second row behind the lead diplomats during negotiation sessions, but they are not permitted to speak. Their role is reduced to drafting talking points for the horizontal attachés who hold the microphone. "It is a shame they can't speak, because they know the file in substance, whereas the lead speakers for [an EU country] do not have the deep knowledge, so they are more prone to agree to something," one diplomat explained. Another put it more bluntly: "The problem is that the [diplomatic officials appointed] don't always understand what's happening because it's very technical."

This dynamic, several sources argue, tilts the negotiation toward deregulation. "Any expert you talk to that knows the subject matter will side with the progressive side of the argument," said a lobbyist tracking the file. The absence of expert pushback makes it easier for bold cuts to survive scrutiny. The task force is expected to assess the Commission's proposal at what one diplomat called "lightning speed", leaving little time for oversight of crucial details.

What the first omnibus package actually changes

The legislation under review forms the backbone of the EU's corporate sustainability framework. The CSRD, adopted in 2022, requires large companies and listed SMEs to disclose detailed information on their environmental footprint, climate risk exposure and net-zero transition plans. The CSDDD, finalised in 2024, obliges companies to identify and address human rights and environmental harms in their supply chains. The Taxonomy regulation defines which economic activities count as environmentally sustainable for investment purposes.

The Commission's omnibus proposal would drop sector-specific reporting standards, shrink the scope of companies covered, and remove an EU-wide civil liability regime for supply chain violations. It would also weaken the requirement for companies to publish transition plans aligned with the 2050 net-zero target. These are not marginal adjustments; they redefine the legal architecture of corporate accountability in the single market.

Political pressure from Paris and Berlin

The simplification drive has migrated from technical working groups to the highest political level. Both French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have publicly called for the supply chain due diligence directive to be scrapped altogether. In Germany the law became one of the most contested elements of the coalition agreement negotiations, with the business wing arguing it imposes disproportionate burdens on mid-sized firms. The Franco-German axis gives the simplification agenda a momentum that purely technocratic arguments struggle to counter.

Legal experts warn of international treaty conflicts

Last month more than 30 legal scholars issued a warning that the proposed changes to mandatory transition plans could place member states in breach of their international obligations. The experts argued that "removing, weakening, or delaying keystone legislation mandating corporate transition plans in line with international commitments runs counter to [country] obligations" to report on greenhouse gas emissions from the corporate sector. The reference is to reporting requirements under the Paris Agreement and the EU's own climate law, which binds the bloc to climate neutrality by 2050.

The intervention underscores a tension that the fast-track process tends to obscure: simplification of reporting rules is not merely an administrative exercise. It touches on the credibility of the EU's climate commitments and the legal enforceability of corporate obligations. When experts are excluded, these second-order consequences receive less attention.

A template for nine more packages

The Commission has announced nine simplification packages in total since the June 2024 European elections, four of which have already been presented. Beyond the first omnibus, the pipeline includes a new category of small mid-cap companies, changes to agricultural budget distribution, and revisions to artificial intelligence rules. The Antici Group task force could be assigned to handle all of them. If the current working method becomes the default, the sidelining of experts will cease to be an exception and become the operating model for EU lawmaking on regulation.

Some Council officials are unconcerned. One noted that member states are free to organise their internal preparation as they wish. The Polish presidency defended the structure in a statement: "One of the priorities of the Polish presidency is simplification. European leaders and a growing number of stakeholders have called for it and there is a need to make EU laws clearer and simpler in order to support economic growth and increase competitiveness." But the distinction between clarity and deregulation is precisely what expert scrutiny is meant to police.