When Kira Marie Peter-Hansen entered the European Parliament in 2019, she made history as its youngest-ever member. But it’s her work since then – not her age – that’s made her one of the most closely watched voices in EU climate and sustainability policymaking.

As vice president of the Greens/EFA group and shadow rapporteur on the Omnibus Proposal, she now plays a central role in defending the EU’s ESG frameworks amid mounting political pressure. 

Introduced by the European Commission in February 2025, the proposal aims to simplify sustainability reporting – but has sparked controversy for its aggressive efforts to significantly water down the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).

Critics argue these changes risk undermining the EU’s long-term climate goals and penalize companies that have already invested in compliance. Peter-Hansen’s leadership is key to steering the negotiations and protecting the integrity of Europe’s sustainability agenda.

With a reputation for technical depth and political clarity, she has emerged as a central figure in shaping the political narrative. We sat down with her to unpack what the Omnibus means for the European Parliament, business, and the EU’s role in the global green transition.

Youth, urgency, and responsibility

When asked whether her age shapes how she approaches climate policy, Peter-Hansen responds with a clear answer. Being part of a younger generation, she says, inevitably brings a different sense of urgency. “It definitely affects how I see the issue,” she explains. “Climate change should be a priority for everyone, but I also hope older generations recognise their responsibility to their children and grandchildren.”

For her, the stakes aren’t theoretical. “My generation will carry the cost – both economically and physically,” she says. “From managing the financial burden to dealing with the realities of climate adaptation, we’re the ones who will have to live with the consequences.”

Forming a cautious coalition

The Omnibus Proposal has brought together an unusual alignment in the European Parliament: the Greens, the European People’s Party (EPP), the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), and Renew Europe have committed to negotiating a shared position before entering trilogues. Together, the four groups hold a parliamentary majority – but whether the alliance can withstand political pressure and diverging priorities remains uncertain.

“I hope it will be able to hold,” says Peter-Hansen. “The reason why the Greens voted for Stop the Clock – and S&D as well – was that we took this commitment to say: these four pro-European groups will do our best to find an agreement on the content and to adopt this together.”

She describes the coalition not just as strategic, but as necessary to defend the integrity of the file. “The alternative would be to go to the far right,” she explains. “That would mean further watering out of the legislation. So even if it's difficult, we're trying to hold the centre.”

Still, she remains realistic. “I don’t know if we’ll manage,” she says. “But this coalition is the best chance we have to keep ambition on the table.”

Inside the coalition: Peter-Hansen’s role

Within the four-party coalition, Peter-Hansen plays a central role in shaping both political coordination and legislative input. “I'm the shadow rapporteur in JURI,” she explains, referring to the Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee, which leads the work on the Omnibus file. “And I'm one of the vice presidents for the Greens. So also the vice president responsible for the Omnibus.”

With several other committees contributing opinions – ranging from environment and human rights to economic affairs – her work is as much about internal alignment as it is about negotiation. “We have a lot of different committees,” she says. “It's the judicial committee leading the work, but a lot of the other committees are giving their inputs on environment, human rights, economics.”

Her job is to make sure that the Greens act in concert across all of them. “I coordinate that the Greens are pulling in the same direction in all of these committees.”

Working at the heart of controversy

That sense of long-term consequence shapes how Peter-Hansen views the Omnibus Proposal, which she describes as unlike any other file she’s worked on. “I think it's the most controversial file I've been working on,” she says. “It's also because it's a Parliament where the political majorities are difficult to grasp, and the polarisation is bigger than it was in the last term.”

What makes the proposal particularly consequential, she argues, is its timing – and the fact that so many companies have already acted on the legislation now under review. “Especially with the CSRD, you have companies already in scope, you have companies that were supposed to report this year,” she says. “And you have a lot of companies who've listened to the political call from lawmakers, made a business, tried to solve a problem, and now their economic lives are on the line.”

This, she explains, is what heightens both the controversy and the stakes. Companies have made real investments in good faith, assuming a stable legal framework. “I think also what makes this file more controversial, more impactful – not only in terms of its climate effect – but it's of course that a lot of companies have already invested after this,” she says. For those businesses, a rollback or delay isn’t just a policy tweak – it threatens financial planning, compliance strategies, and in some cases, their entire business model.

Who shaped the push for deregulation?

When asked who or what drove the deregulation elements of the Omnibus Proposal, Peter-Hansen points not to a single institution or actor, but to a broader political shift taking hold within the European Parliament.

“The scary thing is that in the current European Parliament, you have a majority to remove most of our green legislation,” she says. “It's not a majority that's necessarily easy to use, because it's based on the extreme right. But there is such a majority.”

This alignment, she explains, has opened a political window – one that could be used to challenge not just the Omnibus, but the wider sustainability framework built over the last term. “So of course, there is some political room to challenge our current legislation.”

That doesn’t mean the deregulatory agenda will be easy to execute. Peter-Hansen points out that those pushing for rollback – whether inside or outside the institutions – still need to build functional coalitions. “It's politically very costly,” she says. “Because if the conservative group wants to have a functioning Parliament, they’ll need to build it in the centre.”

This political tension helps explain the structure of the Omnibus itself. It’s a file that emerged quickly, with limited consultation, and has been framed as a simplification effort – yet its potential impact on legislation like the CSRD and CSDDD is anything but simple.

What can – and can’t – be negotiated

Peter-Hansen has previously described the Omnibus Proposal as “massive deregulation.” When asked whether technical amendments could make the file acceptable, she draws a sharp distinction between adjustments that improve implementation and changes that would alter the purpose of the law.

“I think there are a lot of technical amendments that should happen,” she says. “Like making the data requirements and the data collection easier – I think it’s very valid and a good idea. Because it keeps the aim of the legislation and the impact, but makes it less burdensome. I think that would be obvious to me.”

What frustrates her is that these kinds of fixes could have been addressed through existing mechanisms. “I'm a bit frustrated that the Commission isn’t using, for example, the Level 2 act where we then can solve some of the technical challenges,” she says – referring to delegated or implementing acts that allow the Commission to clarify or fine-tune legislation without needing to rewrite it entirely.

But when it comes to the core of the proposal, Peter-Hansen is clear: technical fixes alone won’t solve what she sees as fundamental political problems. “I don't think a technical fix will help the political issues I have,” she says. “What is going to be crucial is, for example, the scope of CSRD, it's the value chain in CSDDD, and it's the civil liability.”

For her, these aren’t small changes – they strike at the purpose of the law itself. “These are not technical details,” she says. “They go to the heart of the legislation.”

What about the EUDR?

Unlike the CSRD, CSDDD, EU Taxonomy, and CBAM, the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) was not included in the Omnibus Proposal – though it was adjusted in late 2024. Can companies assume it will remain untouched?

“Yes, that’s our expectation,” says Peter-Hansen. “But of course, we do see backlash in general on a lot of our legislation.”

That political reality leaves the door open for challenges to existing laws, even if they’re not currently on the table. “Of course, there is some political room to challenge our current legislation,” Peter-Hansen confirms. “But politically it’s very costly, because... if [conservatives] want to have a functioning Parliament, they need to build it in the centre.”

For now, the EUDR remains in force – but Peter-Hansen’s comments make clear that its future, like much of the EU’s sustainability framework, will depend on whether political coalitions hold the line.

A dangerous precedent for EU legislation

Asked whether there is a credible legal argument for reversing or weakening parts of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) after it has already been transposed by more than 20 member states, Peter-Hansen is unequivocal.

“No, I think the way that the Commission has chosen to do this is a bit outrageous,” she says. “Because it's unfair to the Wave 1 companies who invest a lot of this. It creates uncertainty for Wave 2, and it creates an uneven playing field for the member states who've lived up to their EU obligations and the member states who didn't.”

Beyond fairness, she sees broader legal and institutional consequences. “It also creates a bad precedent when it comes to regulation on the internal market – that you can just wait as a member state to transpose it.”

She’s especially critical of how the proposal was developed. “Not having an impact assessment, not including stakeholders – I think it's the worst example of Better Regulation principles I've seen.”

Green regulation and economic growth: contradiction or catalyst?

As debate around the Omnibus Proposal has intensified, so too has criticism that EU sustainability regulations – CSRD or the CSDDD – may harm European competitiveness. Peter-Hansen strongly rejects that framing.

“We don't see that that is the case,” she says. “I’ve previously also raised the case of Denmark.”

Her home country, she argues, is proof that strong sustainability regulation and global competitiveness can go hand in hand. “We're one of the most regulated markets when it comes to sustainability legislation,” she says, “but we're also one of the most competitive ones.”

She acknowledges that some observers attribute Denmark’s success to a few standout companies. “You can argue that it's just because of Novo Nordisk and our medical companies,” she says. “But it's also not just one company.”

Instead, she points to a broader pattern: a regulatory environment that supports long-term value creation, fosters innovation, and doesn’t compromise on climate ambition. “It's their whole economic model that's competitive.”

For Peter-Hansen, this is the bigger picture missing from much of the political discussion around the Omnibus. Strict sustainability rules, she argues, are not an economic liability – they’re part of what makes economies resilient, future-proof, and aligned with global transitions already underway.

What the public doesn’t see

Behind the Omnibus negotiations, Peter-Hansen says there’s one dynamic that stands out – and may come as a surprise to those outside Brussels.

“Well, I’m not sure it would surprise the public,” she begins, “but I do find it interesting how dominant Sweden has become in this file.”

She points to the outsized role Swedish politicians are playing across the file. “Sweden is one of the main countries here – because the rapporteur is Swedish, the rapporteur in the environment committee is Swedish, and the vice president in EPP leading this is also Swedish.”

That Nordic dominance extends beyond Sweden. “When you look at the negotiation team, it's rather Nordic or Western – it's a Dane, a Dutch, a French, and a Swede negotiating it.”

By contrast, southern member states are far less present. “The South of Europe is not there that much – at least not on the parliamentary side,” she notes. “In the Commission, they're there with Commissioner Ribera and Albuquerque, but it’s still quite Nordic-heavy.”

This, she suggests, influences how the legislation is being shaped. “Countries like the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden are generally more liberal when it comes to regulation,” she says. “Even though we’re politically different – green, social democratic, or conservative – we often come from similar economic models, and that background influences how we approach market regulation.”

In her view, the divide isn’t just political – it’s regional. “There is a difference between North and South in how regulation is viewed,” she says. “And I think that shapes the negotiation dynamic more than people might expect.”

Leading or following? Europe’s role in the global green transition

In the March 10th plenary debate on the Omnibus Proposal, Peter-Hansen posed a pointed question: should the EU lead the green transition – or follow the American example?

Asked what steps the EU should take to reassert leadership on sustainability, she’s clear. “I think the first thing we could do now was to adopt a 2040 target so that we're ready for the COP negotiations in six months,” she says.

But she’s also concerned about how that target may be handled procedurally. “I think that would be good,” she continues. “That's another example of something we will probably do in an urgency procedure, which is not super democratic.”

Beyond target-setting, she emphasizes the need for significant investment. “I think it’s also about economic means,” she says. “And there, of course, the Inflation Reduction Act was a good example. China is doing the same, but the EU doesn’t manage to do it.”

For Peter-Hansen, real leadership on climate means more than passing laws – it means delivering results. “Companies need to be sure that even though there is a shift in political power, the main pillars of legislation stay.”

If one paragraph could change

When asked what she would change first in the Omnibus Proposal if given the chance, Peter-Hansen doesn’t hesitate: “That would be the value chain in the CSDDD.”

She takes issue with the proposal’s shift away from a risk-based approach to due diligence. “I think going back from a risk-based approach to just looking at the first tier is stupid,” she says. “It undermines the whole aim of the legislation.”

In her view, the proposed change is not only less effective – it’s also more difficult for companies to implement. “It's not risk-based, and it's more burdensome to do it in that way.”

But she doesn’t stop there. If she had the option to rewrite a second paragraph, she knows where she’d go next: “And then the scope of CSRD. If I can choose a second.”

Looking ahead: What should companies prepare for?

With the future of the CSRD and other sustainability directives under political pressure, many companies are asking the same question: what now? Should they press ahead with preparations or pause until the uncertainty clears?

Peter-Hansen’s answer is firm: keep moving.

“I think the companies should look less to the political layer and then do what they know is right,” she says. In her view, the fundamentals of the green transition remain unchanged – regardless of temporary political shifts.

“Even if the politicians are watering down the standards now, the future will be based on green solutions,” she says. “And if they want to win the race with China, they’ll need to transition either way.”

Her advice is to plan beyond the current legislative cycle. Reporting obligations may be delayed, but expectations from markets, investors, and global competitors will only grow. “I would urge companies to look at what the market is in – not in five – but maybe 10 or 15 years, despite political movements now.”