When the European Commission launched the Omnibus Proposal in February 2025, it was framed as a technical adjustment — a modest “simplification” to reduce the burden of sustainability reporting on businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

But behind that neutral language of that report lies a deep ideological divide. The Omnibus is not just about cutting red tape — it’s about the future of the EU’s entire sustainability framework.

Despite the scale of its impact, very little research has been done to map where political parties actually stand, how much power they hold, and what direction they’re likely to push the regulation in. That’s a blind spot — especially for companies and policymakers trying to plan for the years ahead.

Over the past weeks, political debates have intensified. In a March 10th plenary debate in the European Parliament, party leaders revealed their true positions. What emerged is not consensus — but confrontation. 

In this article, we break down what was said by which party.

The EU party landscape on Omnibus

European People’s Party (EPP) — 188 seats
The EPP, led by Ursula von der Leyen’s Commission, is driving the Omnibus effort. They argue for “selective deregulation” — reducing bureaucracy while maintaining headline climate ambitions. EPP frames growth and competitiveness as prerequisites for achieving sustainability goals. Expect them to lead this agenda, but avoid partnering with the far right unless absolutely necessary.

Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) — 136 seats
The S&D supports simplification in principle but views the current Omnibus as a smokescreen for weakening EU labor, environmental, and human rights standards. They are pushing for revisions, transparency, and a return to compromise-based policymaking.

Renew Europe — 77 seats
Renew is walking a tightrope. They back simplification, especially for SMEs, and support some technical adjustments like CSRD delays. But they sharply oppose what they call the “chainsaw” approach of the right and warn against derailing the von der Leyen coalition by aligning with extremists.

Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA) — 53 seats
The Greens are unequivocally opposed. They see the Omnibus as a rollback of core climate legislation, designed to appease polluters and undercut responsible companies that have already invested in compliance.

The Left (GUE/NGL) — 46 seats
The Left takes an even more hardline stance than the Greens. They accuse the Commission of selling out to corporate interests and undermining the EU’s global leadership on sustainability and human rights.

European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) — 78 seats
ECR views the Omnibus as too timid. They demand deeper deregulation and criticize sustainability legislation as “leftist ideology” that’s crippling Europe’s economy.

Patriots for Europe (PfE) — 84 seats
PfE is aggressively anti-regulation. They claim EU climate policies are destroying national industries and call for dismantling large parts of the Green Deal and ESG frameworks. Their rhetoric is highly populist and hostile to EU-level governance.

Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN) — 25 seats
A smaller nationalist-right group, the ESN mirrors ECR and PfE in tone. They see the Omnibus as a token gesture and call for a full reset on climate regulation and ESG obligations.

Non-Inscrits (NI) — 33 seats
While not a unified group, most NI members lean nationalist and critical of EU regulation. Their voices often echo ESN and PfE rhetoric.

Quotes from across the different EU parties

Each party’s position was clearly stated in Parliament — often in striking, unfiltered language. Below are a few of the boldest quotes from the March 10th plenary debate that capture the tone of this political clash.

Pro-Omnibus voices: "Cut, cut, cut"

"You are trying to avoid making hard decisions. We need new deregulations with which we shout: cut, cut, cut and, once again, cut. We have to throw a lot of directives into the trash where they belong." — Tobiasz Bocheński (ECR)

"Brussels promises deregulation but looks like a wolf wearing sheep's clothing. The European Commission, which has been suffocating us with regulations for decades, now claims it wants to simplify them. It’s like an arsonist suddenly announcing they’ve become a firefighter. Omnibus is no revolution. It’s a cosmetic trim. What we really need is a chainsaw like President Milei, not a paper knife." — Marcin Sypniewski (ESN)

"Multinationals were mentioned like they are bad guys — no, they are good guys. They are providing jobs and economy and growth to Europeans. That is also important. It is good that we do a reality check on this package." — Jörgen Warborn (EPP)

"A growing European economy is the best climate policy that we could have. On our continent, we have the highest standard and also the most ambitious climate policy in the world. Taking down European economy is counter-productive." — Tomas Tobé (EPP)

Cautious middle ground: "Simplify, but don't sabotage"

"You have the choice, today, to go fast with us, in this simplification process, without falling into the excesses we’ve just heard from the right and far-right. If you negotiate with the far-right, then you break the trust of the von der Leyen majority that elected the Commission." — Pascal Canfin (Renew)

"The Commission promised us simplification of EU rules for companies without compromising on the landmark green ambitions of the last mandate... What we’re presented with is removing liability from a law that says to check and address things like child labor and deforestation. That’s not simplification — that’s obstructing justice." — Lara Wolters (S&D)

"We as S&D support this. We engage in simplification, and we want to better protect SMEs... But if you really look at the package, quite a few of these proposals don't deliver on simplification... EPP, instead of talking with other political groups like S&D, Renew, and the Greens, you cowboy-like march through without any dialogue." — Gabriele Bischoff (S&D)

Strong opposition: "You throw the duty of care into the trash."

"You are not reducing bureaucracy — you are extending impunity... You have decided to take the highway of deregulation at breakneck speed. By doing so, you harm our sovereignty, our values, and the transition to a responsible economy." — Marie Toussaint (Greens/EFA)

"With this Omnibus package, you offer a blank check to companies that will destroy the planet and exploit workers. You throw the duty of care into the trash, betray its very principle, and remove financial sanctions." — Manon Aubry (The Left)

"The Commission’s proposed changes dilute the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive by removing smaller subcontractors from the scope and weakening the position of victims of human rights violations... There’s no logic in regulation that checks pineapple juice production in Finland but ignores labor conditions in Thailand." — Li Andersson (The Left)

"You destroy trust in EU legislation when you reverse climate rules before they’ve even been implemented. Companies have invested, systems have changed, citizens want sustainable products — and now this chaos?" — Anna Cavazzini (Greens/EFA)

A political majority — what possibilities are there?

While the Omnibus is likely to pass in some form, full-scale deregulation is less certain.

The EPP — despite leading the pro-business narrative — appears cautious about aligning too closely with the far right. Their path to a working majority may depend on collaboration with Renew or S&D, both of whom demand a careful review of the Omnibus Proposal.

This creates a ceiling for how far the Omnibus can go. What we’re likely to see is selective deregulation: delays, exemptions, and scope limitations — but not a full repeal of the EU’s sustainability frameworks.

Three paths for Parliament: what the numbers tell us

As the debate over the Omnibus intensifies, political arithmetic will determine the future of sustainability regulation in the EU. A majority needs 360 seats. We modeled three different majorities that could shape the outcome — each with its own political agenda, risks, and implications.

1. Anti-Omnibus majority (423 seats): EPP + S&D + Greens + The Left

This is the only clear path to halting or significantly reshaping the Omnibus Proposal. It would require the center-right EPP to align with center-left and left-wing parties that reject deregulation in its current form. While these parties disagree on the details, they share concerns over weakening environmental and social protections. However, this “progressive firewall” is politically fragile: cooperation between the EPP and the Greens or The Left is rare, and ideological differences could derail any coordinated action.

2. Semi-deregulation majority (401 seats): EPP + Renew + S&D

This is the most likely scenario. It represents a centrist coalition that could support limited simplification measures while rejecting radical rollbacks. The EPP gets its deregulatory momentum, but moderated by Renew and S&D, who would insist on safeguards to protect the integrity of the Green Deal. This majority is politically viable, avoids the stigma of far-right cooperation, and allows von der Leyen — member of EPP and president of the European Commission — to preserve her centrist mandate. Expect this group to drive amendments and reframe the Omnibus without dismantling core legislation.

3. Full deregulation majority (375 seats): EPP + ECR + PfE + ESN

This far-right alliance technically delivers a majority, but at great political cost. It would align the EPP with nationalist and anti-Green Deal parties who have openly attacked EU climate law, ESG standards, and the rule of law itself. For the Commission — and for von der Leyen personally — such a coalition would be toxic. It risks destabilizing the Parliament, triggering public backlash, and undermining trust in EU institutions. It’s a coalition of convenience, not coherence — and one the EPP is unlikely to embrace.

What this means for ESG and compliance teams

This debate isn’t just political debate. It will determine:

• How and when new CSRD rules apply
• Whether key parts of the CSDDD, EU Taxonomy and CBAM get revised
• How enforcement, liability, and sustainability expectations shift in the coming years

For companies, this means new uncertainty — but also new opportunities to shape policy through engagement with national governments, MEPs, and industry bodies.

The lesson? Don’t assume sustainability regulation is locked in. The direction of EU policy is still very much in flux — and increasingly politicized.

What to watch for next

More changes are coming, and political pressure is mounting. The coming months will see:

• Committee revisions and amendments
• Possible coalition shifts in Parliament
• Renewed lobbying from business groups and industry alliances
• National governments weighing in ahead of European elections

If you work in sustainability, compliance, or ESG reporting, this is the moment to pay attention, get organized, and push back when simplification becomes a smokescreen for deregulation.

At Coolset, we stay closely attuned to EU regulatory developments — not just to track the headlines, but to help businesses navigate what’s coming next. Our sustainability platform is built to adapt with the legislation, not against it. If you want to ensure your organization stays compliant, future-ready, and ahead of the curve, book a demo with our team today.