https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/06/eus-new-ai-envoy-tech-ceo-extraordinary-conflicts-interest <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">19.06.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/digital" hreflang="en">Tech</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The Commission's decision to appoint the Chair of Siemens, Jim Hagemann Snabe, as AI envoy is rife with extraordinary conflicts of interest. The EU Commission is currently engaged in an unprecedented rollback of digital, social, and environmental rules, which often closely mirror industry lobbying demands. Now it seems that corporate interests don't just have a seat at the table — they have an office in the Berlaymont.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>This article was originally published by </em><a href="https://background.tagesspiegel.de/digitalisierung-und-ki/briefing/die-snabe-ernennung-ueberschreitet-eine-grenze"><em>Tagesspiegel</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://euobserver.com/222274/the-eus-new-ai-envoy-is-a-tech-ceo-with-extraordinary-conflicts-of-interest/"><em>EU Observer</em></a><em>.</em><br><br>On 3 June the EU Commission announced its long-awaited 'tech sovereignty package'. Nominally this is intended to reduce the EU's dependence on Big Tech. Hidden within was news of the appointment of Jim Hagemann Snabe as a special advisor on industrial AI.</p> <p>It is hard to imagine a more glaring conflict of interest. Snabe will continue as Chair of Siemens which not only has a significant presence in the AI market, but is actively lobbying EU institutions on the topic. Furthermore, Snabe only very recently suspended his role on the advisory boards of Google Cloud and the US-based company C3.ai, still holds <a href="https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=1849334">stocks</a> in the latter with a current value of over US$4 million, and has extensive holdings in other digital-related industries too. All this makes his appointment deeply problematic.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2><strong>Radical deregulation</strong></h2> <p>Snabe's appointment comes at a time when the von der Leyen Commission has embarked on an unprecedented assault on existing EU rules, including on digital rights. While the Commission has been careful to cloak its deregulation agenda in a mist of<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave"> technocratic and nebulous language</a>, von der Leyen recently admitted the quiet part out loud: “we all agree we need simplification, we need deregulation”.</p> <p>This agenda has been closely <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/what-corporate-capture-looks">shaped</a> by corporate interests. Almost<a href="https://table.media/en/europe/feature/lobby-contacts-second-vdl-commission-has-more-frequent-meetings-with-companies"> 70 per cent </a>of the second von der Leyen Commission's meetings thus far have been with companies or business associations (a proportion far greater than usual). And the Commission's Digital Omnibus –&nbsp;launched in November 2025, and which aims to <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/article-article-how-big-tech-shaped-eus-roll-back-digital-rights">water down rules on AI and data protection</a> – has been no exception.</p> <p>Concerningly, Von der Leyen is increasingly buying into the Big Tech lobby frame that 'regulation' stands in the way of innovation. Even as it becomes ever clearer that new AI models need guardrails, whether related to the energy costs of data centres, the suicides of teens using largely untested chatbots, AI-generated sexual images of children, or regular hacks of major companies via for example the use of new AI agents, to name just a few.</p> <p>Yet rather than tackling the monopoly power of Big Tech the Commission is seeking to undermine our digital rights in the expectation of catching up in the ‘global AI race’. In fact, von der Leyen has <a href="https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/tech-konzern-google-umgeht-vorerst-milliardenstrafe-der-eu/100217105.html">intervened</a> personally to postpone a fine against the US tech giant Google for cementing its market-dominant position. It remains unclear how preserving a monopoly like this is good for 'European innovation'.</p> <p>Snabe’s appointment feels like a mask-off moment, where the Commission has dropped any pretence about whose interests it serves. Michael McNamara, a Liberal MEP and former rapporteur on the AI Omnibus, has remarked scathingly that the von der Leyen Commission is beginning to resemble a "pale imitation of the Trump White House".</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2>Siemens lobby footprint in Brussels: watering down rules on dangerous AI systems</h2> <p>Siemens already exerts significant influence over EU policies, <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/siemens-ag?rid=4266797770-31">spending</a> at least €3.5 million euros on lobbying in Brussels every year, and holding over one meeting every two weeks with the current Commission. In a top level meeting with von der Leyen just last month, Siemens and six other European tech CEOs, agreed to meet every three months.</p> <p>The company is eager to exploit this access to achieve political wins. Just weeks ago, Siemens <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-eu-ai-law-machinery-exemption-industrial-rewrite/">aggressively lobbied</a> to weaken the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, seeking to exempt its own products — industrial AI — from the legislation. Most national governments and experts <a href="https://www.techpolicy.press/what-the-eu-ai-omnibus-deal-changes-for-the-ai-act-and-what-lies-ahead/">resisted</a> this change as it would <a href="https://background.tagesspiegel.de/digitalisierung-und-ki/briefing/auf-den-omnibus-wird-jahrelange-rechtsunsicherheit-folgen">create legal complexity</a>, but it received high-level support from German Chancellor Merz, and did indeed lead to the AI Act being further weakened.&nbsp;</p> <p>Digital rights organisation EDRi responded: “when powerful actors complain loudly enough, safeguards can be recast as burdens, and rules that protect people can be reopened”.</p> <p>Siemens <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-20/siemens-threatens-to-skip-europe-for-ai-spending-due-to-rules">lobbied</a> to remove sector-specific rules from the AI Act, which for example includes regulations relating to medical devices. Yet the dangers of AI systems here are beyond question. A recent European Press Prize-winning <a href="https://www.europeanpressprize.com/article/mole-or-cancer-the-algorithm-that-gets-one-in-three-melanomas-wrong-and-erases-patients-with-dark-skin/">investigation</a> revealed how the AI system in Spanish hospitals used to detect potentially lethal forms of skin cancer was failing in over 30 per cent of cases, a result that medical experts deemed poor and dangerous.</p> <p>Meanwhile if this appointment goes ahead Snabe – who will continue his role running Siemens alongside his new position as an envoy for industrial AI – will be well able to influence EU policies on such issues.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2>Data protection for conflict of interests, not for the rest of us</h2> <p>With mounting pressure over Snabe's appointment, the Commission is <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/ursula-von-der-leyen-european-commission-ai-pick-criticism-conflict-of-interest-jim-hagemann-snabe/">refusing</a> to reveal the 'specific safeguards' it has put in place to prevent conflicts of interest, citing data protection reasons. This is deeply cynical, especially given the Commission's intention to weaken privacy rules for everyone else.</p> <p>Clearly, no safeguards will mitigate the conflicts of interest that come with Snabe’s appointment. With one of Europe's largest companies now sitting in an office in the Berlaymont building, a line is crossed. Ursula von der Leyen should revoke Jim Hagemann Snabe’s appointment.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Watchdog organisations call on the Commission to revoke AI envoy appointment</strong></p> <p><em>The letter below was sent to the Commission on 10/06/26. The pdf can be accessed </em><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/Re%3A%20Revoke%20the%20appointment%20of%20the%20AI%20Envoy.pdf"><em>here</em></a><em>.</em></p> <p>Dear Commission President von der Leyen,<br>Dear Commission Vice-President Virkkunen,</p> <p>We, the undersigned organisations, urge you to revoke the appointment of Mr Hagemann Snabe as EU envoy for industrial AI. Mr Hagemann Snabe presents a clear risk of conflict of interest that cannot be mitigated; therefore, he cannot fulfil his mandate in an objective, impartial and independent manner.</p> <p>The <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/fb0f99da-0463-4018-bd0d-72a40c723374_en?filename=rules%20on%20special%20advisers%20c2007_6655">rules on special advisers</a> to the Commission state that “when appointing an adviser, each Member of the Commission must ensure that there is no conflict of interest between the future duties of his or her special adviser and any outside activities they may have.”</p> <p>Futhermore, Article 11 of the Staff Regulations, which also applies to special advisors, states that “an official shall not, in the performance of his duties and save as hereinafter provided, deal with a matter in which, directly or indirectly, he has any personal interest such as to impair his independence, and, in particular, family and financial interests.”</p> <p>Firstly, Mr Hagemann Snabe is the chairman of the Supervisory Board of Siemens AG, a company with considerable stakes in the AI market that has recently lobbied EU institutions to exclude sectoral AI from the scope of the Artificial Intelligence Act, as widely reported in the media. The company has a strong presence in Brussels, with an annual <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/siemens-ag?rid=4266797770-31">lobbying budget of at least €3.5 million</a> and regular lobbying meetings with the EU Commission.</p> <p>Secondly, although Mr Hagemann Snabe has <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_1243">suspended</a> his membership of the advisory boards of Google Cloud and C3.ai, these recent appointments may still influence his position as AI envoy. This is especially the case given that <a href="https://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1849334.htm">SEC filings</a> show that he still owns<a href="https://www.stocktitan.net/sec-filings/AI/form-4-c3-ai-inc-insider-trading-activity-cc6a567feef6.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com"> C3.ai stocks</a> with a current value of over $4 million.</p> <p>Thirdly, Mr Hagemann Snabe also holds a <a href="https://www.bloomenergy.com/team/jim-snabe/">position</a> as a member of the <a href="https://www.bloomenergy.com/team/jim-snabe/">board of Bloom Energy Corporation</a>. The Commission’s <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_1243">communication</a> did not mention whether Mr Hagemann Snabe intends to step down from this position. Bloom Energy Corporation poses another potential conflict of interest, as it provides on-site power generation for data centres. The company could benefit from Mr Hagemann Snabe’s position as AI envoy, which has “a particular focus on AI infrastructure, including data centres”. SEC filings show that Mr Hagemann Snabe owns a <a href="https://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1849334.htm">significant amount of the company's securities</a>.</p> <p>Lastly, Mr Hagemann Snabe also holds a <a href="https://www.temasek.com.sg/en/about-us/our-board">position</a> on the <a href="https://www.temasek.com.sg/en/about-us/our-board#bod-jim-hagemann-snabe">board of the investment fund Temasek Holdings</a>, which holds <a href="https://www.temasek.com.sg/en/our-investments/our-portfolio">investments</a> across the digital industry, including in Amazon, Nvidia, Tencent and Alibaba. The Commission’s communication did not mention whether Mr Hagemann Snabe will suspend his position at this company.</p> <p>Clearly, it is impossible for Mr Hagemann Snabe to navigate the potential conflicts of interest that would arise from his appointment as envoy for industrial AI. Even with the strictest safeguards in place, he would be unable to act impartially, independently or objectively in the public interest. Given growing public concerns about under-regulated AI and the environmental impact of data centres, Mr Hagemann Snabe’s appointment risks undermining public trust in EU decision-making.</p> <p>We therefore urge you to revoke his appointment with immediate effect.</p> <p>Kind regards,<br><br>Corporate Europe Observatory<br>Transparency International EU<br>LobbyControl<br>The Good Lobby</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.01.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/article-article-how-big-tech-shaped-eus-roll-back-digital-rights" hreflang="en">Article by article, how Big Tech shaped the EU’s roll-back of digital rights</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">25.02.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/watchdog-organisations-issue-call-withdraw-aura-sallas-appointment-digital-omnibus" hreflang="en">Watchdog organisations issue call to withdraw Aura Salla’s appointment as Digital Omnibus rapporteur</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">19.11.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/preparing-roll-back-digital-rights-commissions-secretive-meetings-industry" hreflang="en">Preparing a roll-back of digital rights: Commission's secretive meetings with industry</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">29.10.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/big-tech-lobby-budgets-hit-record-levels" hreflang="en">Big Tech lobby budgets hit record levels</a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Letter to the Commission to revoke the appointment of Hagemann-Snabe" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/Re%3A%20Revoke%20the%20appointment%20of%20the%20AI%20Envoy.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Letter to the Commission to revoke the appointment of Hagemann-Snabe</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Fri, 19 Jun 2026 07:53:00 +0000 Bram Vranken 2410 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/06/new-gmos-deregulated-betrayal-farmers-consumers-and-science-itself <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">17.06.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Brussels, 17 June 2026 - </strong>The right-wing majority in the European Parliament today has voted today to scrap existing safety and transparency rules for new GM foods (NGTs). By doing so they betrayed farmers, consumers and science itself.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Today’s vote means that big seed and pesticide companies like Bayer-Monsanto, BASF, Corteva, Syngenta, and their lobby groups, including Euroseeds and Croplife EU, can increase their profits and do not have to ensure their products are safe. It will cause an increased dependency by farmers and breeders on these few corporations (mostly US- or China-owned), which is a threat to food security. Already today, these multinational seed corporations dominate 60% of the commercial seed market, leading to a highly concerning level of dependency.</p> <p><strong>Nina Holland,</strong> <strong>Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner</strong>, says:</p> <p><em>“From the outset, the NGT law proposal from the European Commission had no scientific basis and is built on false promises of sustainability. The EU is taking a big step back in health and environmental protection by excluding most NGT plants from safety tests and traceability requirements. The right-wing</em></p> <p><em>“On Monday evening, already biotech seed lobbyists like Garlich von Essen of Euroseeds were popping champagne bottles in the EP Swan Bar. Copa-Cogeca, for its part, shamefully betrayed farmers' rights by recommending MEPs to vote against the patent amendments, even though farmers and breeders will be harmed by a surge of patented crops. This law goes directly against the need for a fairer, more diverse, and resilient agriculture.”</em></p> <p><em>"If consumers want to know what is in their food, support farmers and avoid harmful chemicals, the only option is to choose organic food."</em></p> <p>ENDS</p> <p><strong>For media inquiries, please contact</strong></p> <p>Nina Holland, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner:<br><a href="#" data-mail-to="avan/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +32 466 294420</p> <p><strong>Notes to editor</strong></p> <ul> <li>&nbsp;Biotech lobby groups are set to trap farmers and breeders in patent mine field - <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/biotech-lobby-groups-are-set-trap-farmers-and-breeders-patent-minefield">https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/biotech-lobby-groups-are-set-tra…</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Wed, 17 Jun 2026 12:40:00 +0000 Marcella Via 2409 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/06/mcc-brussels-victim-narrative-cannot-obscure-its-own-transparency-failures <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">15.06.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p dir="ltr"><strong>Brussels, 15 June 2026 - </strong>Today, the EU Transparency Register Secretariat decided to suspend MCC Brussels' registration. This follows a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/02/ceo-submits-official-complaint-against-orban-thinktanks-lobbying-secrecy">formal complaint</a> submitted by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) in 2025 regarding MCC Brussels' failure to disclose financial information, including budget size and funding sources, as required under the Register’s rules.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p dir="ltr"><em>“MCC Brussels is trying to cast itself as the victim of political persecution. However, this is simply an organisation being held to the same transparency standards as everyone else seeking to influence EU policymaking,” said </em><strong>Olivier Hoedeman, Corporate Europe Observatory research and campaign coordinator</strong>.</p> <p dir="ltr">“<em>We submitted the complaint in spring 2025 because MCC Brussels failed to disclose its budget and funding sources, in violation of the Transparency Register rules. At the same time, MCC Brussels was playing a leading role in a far-right witchhunt against NGOs and their funding, falsely claiming there was a problem with NGOs’ transparency. Four months after the Transparency Register secretariat opened an investigation into MCC Brussels, the Orban-linked think tank finally added basic financial information to its entry in the register.</em></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>This revealed that they are the second-best-funded think tank in Brussels, with an annual budget of 6.3 million euros.</em></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>In their press release, MCC Brussels quite implausibly tries to manoeuvre itself into a victim role that it definitely does not deserve. This is not a small organisation being targeted by EU institutions. They are a multi-million-euro think tank and a close ally of the Trump administration, and MAGA think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation. Acting like they’re being persecuted is simply absurd.”</em></p> <p dir="ltr">ENDS</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>For media inquiries, please contact</strong></p> <p dir="ltr">Olivier Hoedeman, Corporate Europe Observatory research and campaign coordinator</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="#" data-mail-to="byvivre/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +32 4 74486545</p> <p dir="ltr">Marcella Via, Corporate Europe Observatory press officer</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="#" data-mail-to="zrqvn/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +32 489 622233</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">21.02.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/02/ceo-submits-official-complaint-against-orban-thinktanks-lobbying-secrecy" hreflang="en">CEO submits official complaint against Orban thinktank's lobbying secrecy</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Mon, 15 Jun 2026 14:52:00 +0000 Marcella Via 2408 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/06/slide-away-better-regulation-not-progress-towards-it <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Open letter to the European Commission </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.06.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>A slide away from better regulation, not progress towards it&nbsp;</h3> <p><em>Dear President von der Leyen, dear Commissioners,</em></p> <p>We are writing to set out civil society’s concerns regarding the proposals to change the existing Better Regulation guidelines, and on other proposals in your communication dubbed <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/75b997e8-ebe0-4954-9705-6b61bdb05b87_en?filename=com-2026-380_en.pdf">“A Simpler, Clearer, and Better Enforced EU Rulebook.”</a> The undersigned organisations believe, that the Commission is now taking steps that are unacceptable from a democratic perspective, not in line with the EU’s civil society strategy, and create a hierarchy of stakeholders, as they confer advantages on companies at the expense of the public and the economy as a whole.</p> <p>Several of the proposed reforms risk undermining evidence-based policymaking, transparency and accountability by reinforcing a structural imbalance in favour of a narrow set of industry interests. We therefore believe important elements of the Communication should be reconsidered. These concerns are reinforced by <a href="https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/recommendation/en/215920">the European Ombudsman’s recent findings</a> on maladministration in urgency procedures. Now the Commission responds by weakening the same rules, so it can continue unabated on the basis of weakened guidelines.</p> <p>The undersigned organisations are particularly concerned about the following elements:</p> <p><strong>1. Urgency Procedures and Impact Assessments</strong></p> <p>In the Communication, the Commission commits to more impact assessments but reduces their quality and relevance by limiting them through a “matrix of key impacts” focussed on costs on business. To address the Ombudsman’s findings the Commission attempts to define how “urgency” may allow for derogations from standard procedure but fails to reassure. Firstly, “urgency” is defined too broadly including a vague reference to “political context” that no certainty or predictability can come of it. Secondly, the Commission creates two tiers of urgency procedures, one with limited impact assessments and consultations, one one of “particular urgency” completely without either. Any derogation from standard procedures must be narrowly defined, objectively justified and subject to independent scrutiny.</p> <p>On the same note, we find it deeply troubling that the Commission suggests that the European Parliament introduce impact assessments on “substantial amendments” using the “standard cost model”. This methodology is outdated and problematic, as it does not take into account the real cost of a legislative proposal or the cost of inaction for the whole of society, including environmental and social impacts (on which the economy depends). The economy does not exist in a vacuum, and should not be considered as such. The Commission is attempting to make way for a simple and fast route to ‘simplification’ of European laws. Political choices concerning workers and social rights, environmental protection, consumer protection, digital rights, public health or fundamental rights must not be subordinated to simplified cost-benefit analyses&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>2. Consultation and Stakeholder Participation</strong></p> <p>We are concerned by the Commission’s increasing reliance on “targeted consultation” formats. By that, the Commission often means disregarding other views than those of selected business groups. One of the most recent examples is the new tool of ‘Reality Checks’ where most often only businesses are invited to contribute in the process and where any transparency is missing. The result is that when preparing proposals, the Commission is risking blind spots and great injustices. Such an approach is, we believe, in breach of the EU Treaties, as well as adopted standards of public consultation.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>3. National Standards Beyond EU Minimum Requirements</strong></p> <p>We are particularly concerned by the increasingly negative framing of so-called ‘gold-plating’, a term which originated from vested industry interests which want the Commission to limit member states introducing more stringent measures than those agreed on at the European level. In itself, there is nothing wrong with ‘gold plating’. Adopting more ambitious measures at the national level, is legitimate when they aim at raising standards, and national legislatures are within their rights to do so. There may even be the positive outcome of raising the standard at EU-level, and law often influences culture and practice.</p> <p>For that, we condemn the one-sided wording on’ gold-plating’, and the measures the Commission proposes to take. The Commission’s proposal suggests action should be taken at the European level, even if measures at the national level are not contrary to EU law. This is set to happen in the context of the European Semester, among others. In social policy, labour laws, and policies working conditions, Member States often apply more ambitious measures, and must be able to continue to do so, in line with&nbsp;Article 288 TFEU. In environmental policy, article 192 TFEU expressly provides for the introduction of more stringent protective measures by Member States.</p> <p><strong>4. Temporal Policy restrictions</strong></p> <p>There are quite a few elements in the communication– as they stand – are undefined, but which we fear could come to detrimental use. There is the desire to introduce more grandfathering clauses, which risk being used to delay the phasing in of crucial rules to protect the environment or public health. And there are the highly problematic sunset clauses: with that change in legislation it is no longer the abolition of a protective provision that must be justified, but its retention. The political burden of proof is reversed. Crucial regulation could be automatically repealed if no agreement is reached on the bill in time.</p> <p><strong>The way forward</strong></p> <p>In general, the Commission is introducing a set of so-called reforms, all to promote a more myopic approach to decision-making. It is about marginalizing other interests than those of businesses in the procedures. By reducing scrutiny, weakening participation and prioritising a limited set of economic indicators, they risk obscuring broader impacts on environmental sustainability, social cohesion, public health, consumer rights, workers’ rights and fundamental rights. This is the very opposite of Better Regulation.</p> <p>The wasteful spendthrift at the public’s expense must stop. We call for:</p> <p>-&nbsp; A stop to the breach of the EU Treaty: The Treaty’s article on the necessity to integrate eg. environmental concerns, workers and consumer interests, must be reflected in the Better Regulation guidelines (Article 3, 11 and 153 TFEU.)</p> <p>- An alignment of Better Regulation with the 10 guiding principles for dialogue with civil society in the EU’s civil society strategy.</p> <p>- Transparency as a priority: Consultations must always be public, open and transparent.</p> <p>- Significant structured civil dialogue academic, civil society and trade union participation in advisory groups. The time of corporate dominated ‘expert groups’ must come to an end.</p> <p>- Thorough investigations of the impacts of new legislation, including all relevant aspects. Crude cost-benefit analyses give a biased and misleading image to decision-makers.</p> <p>- An end to single-minded attacks on so-called ‘gold plating’. Fundamental protection standards e.g. in labour and labour protection law, consumer rights and environmental law are now at stake.</p> <p>We urge the Commission to take these concerns into account when revising the Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolkit.</p> <p>We remain available to collaborate and contribute to this process.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Yours sincerely,</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Sun, 14 Jun 2026 08:54:00 +0000 Kenneth Haar 2407 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/06/biggest-corporate-lobby-spenders-hit-record-eu382-million-industry-friendly-agenda-speeds <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Tech, finance, energy, and chemical giants are spending more than ever to influence EU policy </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">11.06.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>As EU leaders prepare for the upcoming European Council meeting on 18–19 June, a new analysis by Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl shows that corporate lobbying in Brussels has reached record levels, and their efforts are paying off.&nbsp;</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Using data scraped from&nbsp;<a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/">LobbyFacts</a>, the&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/06/eu-corporate-lobby-league-2026">EU corporate lobby league 2026</a> reveals that companies and industry associations with a declared annual lobby budget of at least €1 million&nbsp;— 173 in total — now collectively spend a minimum of €381.75 million per year lobbying EU institutions&nbsp;– nearly 50% more than in 2020. These figures are likely to be under-estimates.</p> <p>These findings emerge at a time when the second von der Leyen Commission, alongside a right-wing majority in the European Parliament, is pursuing an extensive deregulation agenda under the guise of 'competitiveness' and 'simplification'. This agenda fulfils long-standing requests from some of Europe's most influential industry groups.</p> <p><strong>Vicky Cann, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner</strong>, says:&nbsp;</p> <p><em>“EU corporate lobbying has reached staggering levels, and today’s figures are just the tip of the iceberg. It's not only about seeking influence; it's about the most powerful industries in Europe and beyond capturing EU policy-making, while the public is largely in the dark about what is happening. This takes place in the midst of the biggest deregulation wave ever seen in the EU. Meanwhile, instead of defending the public, EU decision-makers are offering the biggest industry lobbies an open door.”</em></p> <p>Key findings from the report include:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Tech’s influence machine:</strong> The largest tech companies maintain the biggest annual lobby spend overall at least&nbsp;€73 million, which is used to oppose strong rules to protect our digital rights.&nbsp;</li> <li><strong>Fossil fuel industry cashes on crisis:</strong> Energy industry giants (at least&nbsp;€52 million annual lobby budget) are using geopolitical crises such as the Iran war to lobby for a resurgence of fossil fuels, as well as to rebrand ‘false solutions’ to the climate crisis as sustainable.&nbsp;</li> <li><strong>A toxic business:</strong> The biggest chemical corporations and trade associations are spending their lobby budgets (at least&nbsp;€46.5 million) on demanding weaker existing and proposed rules which are aimed at protecting citizens from harmful chemicals and pesticides.</li> <li><strong>Lobby spending reaches new heights:</strong> This 2026 corporate lobby spend is €27.55 million more (+7.78%) than the very same companies and associations declared one year ago, and €125.28 million more (+48.85%) than they declared spending on EU lobbying in 2020.</li> <li><strong>A growing firepower</strong>: In 2026, 39 more lobby players (+29.1%) declare a €1 million+ budget than in 2020.</li> </ul> <p>Worryingly, this increased expenditure is being rewarded with unprecedented political access and policy&nbsp;outcomes that undermine the public interest. Since taking office, the second von der Leyen Commission has launched a&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch">series of omnibus and deregulation initiatives</a> affecting areas including chemicals legislation, agriculture, digital policy, industrial emissions, and permitting procedures.</p> <p><strong>Felix Duffy, LobbyControl researcher and campaigner</strong> says: <em>“The fact that the largest Big Tech lobbyists collectively spend at least 73 million euros is a warning sign for democracy. At a time when Europe urgently needs robust digital regulations, the most powerful technology companies are investing record sums to undermine them. Google, Amazon, Meta and others already hold enormous market power and have privileged access to policymakers.&nbsp;</em></p> <p><em>Rather than making concessions to Big Tech with a deregulation agenda, the European Commission should rigorously enforce the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Services Act, the AI Act, and the GDPR. Anyone who wants to protect digital fundamental rights, fair competition and democratic oversight must limit the power of Big Tech.”</em></p> <p>The report makes various recommendations to rethink EU lobby rules. With some parts of decision-making being steadily captured by corporate interests at the expense of the interests of citizens, action is urgently needed to protect action on the climate and environmental pollution crises, and to preserve digital rights. The Commission should stop providing privileged access to industry lobbies and ensure that other voices, for example from the general public, civil society, and independent scientists and researchers, are heard loud and clear. And the EU Lobby Transparency Register must be made legally-binding on registrants, to tackle the significant problem of inaccurate data which litters the register, and which this report also highlights.</p> <p>ENDS</p> <p><strong>For media inquiries, please contact</strong></p> <p>Vicky Cann, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner&nbsp;</p> <p>+44 7960 988096, <a href="#" data-mail-to="ivpxl/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a></p> <p>Felix Duffy, LobbyControl researcher and campaigner</p> <p>+49 160 91478050, <a href="#" data-mail-to="sryvk/qbg/qhssl/ng/yboolpbageby/qbg/qr" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a></p> <p>Marcella Via, Corporate Europe Observatory press officer</p> <p>+32 489622233, <a href="#" data-mail-to="zrqvn/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;<strong>Notes to editor</strong></p> <ul> <li>You can read the full report and access the full dataset&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/06/eu-corporate-lobby-league-2026">here</a>.</li> <li>Methodology: Our full methodology is detailed in the report’s appendix. In brief, we used&nbsp;<a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/">LobbyFacts</a> to analyse all companies and trade associations declaring an annual EU lobby spend of €1 million or more as of 11 May 2026, and the same registrants on the same date in 2025 and 2020. All figures are likely to be under-estimates as we have used the minimum spend within the given bandwidths. The analysis highlights and explains a number of cases of possible over-reporting of financial lobby data, and of possible under-reporting of financial lobby data including by some well-known corporate names. It is possible that some lobby data may have been updated by the registrants since 11 May 2026.</li> <li><a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/">LobbyFacts</a> enables&nbsp;journalists, activists, and researchers to search, sort, filter, and analyse data from the official EU Transparency Register, tracking lobbyists and their influence at the EU level over time.</li> <li>You can read Corporate Europe Observatory’s analysis of the latest developments in the deregulation agenda&nbsp;on&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch">Deregulation Watch</a>.</li> <li>The EU’s lobby league table analysis published in 2025 is available&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/02/eus-lobby-league-table">here</a>.</li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">11.06.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/06/eu-corporate-lobby-league-2026" hreflang="en">The EU corporate lobby league 2026</a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="EU corporate lobby league 2026" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/REPORT%20LOBBY%20LEAGUE._2026_0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EU corporate lobby league 2026</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Wed, 10 Jun 2026 22:01:00 +0000 Marcella Via 2403 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/06/eu-corporate-lobby-league-2026 <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Big business spends more on lobbying than ever </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">11.06.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/digital" hreflang="en">Tech</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/pesticides-gmos" hreflang="en">Pesticides &amp; GMOs</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/single-market" hreflang="en">Single market</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Corporate spending on lobbying the EU keeps on rising – and the lobbyists are getting bigger results than ever before. The 2026 EU corporate lobby league, published by Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl, reveals that the top industry lobbyists (all those with €1 million-plus declared influencing budgets) are spending almost €381.75 million annually on lobbying the European Union institutions. That is 50% more than in 2020; and the number of registered industry organisations has risen by nearly 30% in the same time period.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>And it's paying off: in the era of the von der Leyen 2 European Commission –&nbsp;and a right-wing majority in the European Parliament – politicians are delivering industry-friendly policies at an unprecedented rate.</p> <p>The full analysis is available <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/REPORT%20LOBBY%20LEAGUE._2026_0.pdf">here</a> and texts in German <a href="https://www.lobbycontrol.de/lobbyismus-in-der-eu/neuer-rekord-bei-lobbyausgaben-in-brussel-125465">here</a>. The full dataset is available <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/3T3bZaGcnYgaGQP">here</a>.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Lobby league</h3> <p>Using data scraped from&nbsp;<a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/">LobbyFacts</a>, the&nbsp;EU corporate lobby league 2026 reveals that companies and industry associations with a declared annual lobby budget of at least €1 million&nbsp;— 173 in total — now collectively spend a minimum of €381.75 million per year lobbying EU institutions&nbsp;– nearly 50% more than in 2020. The total sum of all corporate spending on EU lobbying, including those with spends below €1 million would, of course, be even higher.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-06/HZ_INFOGRAPHS%202026%20LOBBY%20LEAGUE%20Spend.jpg?itok=H9oBQrI6" width="800" height="420" alt="Lobby league 2026 spendx" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Sector by sector</h3> <p>Our analysis confirms that companies and trade associations from Big Tech; Banking and Finance; Energy; Chemicals and Agri-business; and Cross-sector are the largest industries lobbying in Brussels.&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-06/HZ_INFOGRAPHS%202026%20LOBBY%20LEAGUE%20Table.jpg?itok=C5oI3goP" width="800" height="420" alt="Lobby league 2026 tablex" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>By sector, the analysis reveals:</p> <p>The highest-spenders within the <strong>tech industry</strong> have the biggest annual lobby spend overall at €73 million, which is used to oppose strong rules to protect our digital rights.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-06/HZ_INFOGRAPHS%202026%20LOBBY%20LEAGUE%20Tech.jpg?itok=1H41ko5c" width="800" height="420" alt="Lobby league 2026 techx" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Energy industry</strong> giants (€52 million annual lobby budget) are using geopolitical crises such as the Iran war to lobby for a resurgence of fossil fuels, as well as to rebrand false solutions to the climate crisis as sustainable.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-06/HZ_INFOGRAPHS%202026%20LOBBY%20LEAGUE%20Energy.jpg?itok=pTXBW2T2" width="800" height="420" alt="Lobby league 2026 energyx" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The biggest <strong>chemical corporations and their trade associations</strong> are spending their lobby budgets (totalling €46.5 million) on weakening rules to protect citizens from harmful chemicals and pesticides.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-06/HZ_INFOGRAPHS%202026%20LOBBY%20LEAGUE%20Chemicals.jpg?itok=TFLOkzaw" width="800" height="420" alt="Lobby league 2026 chemicalsx" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Deregulation</h3> <p>We are living through a corporate lobby bonanza and these steadily-rising budgets show that companies and trade associations regard this as a worthwhile investment that is paying off. The biggest deregulation wave ever seen in the EU has already delivered 10 so-called <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch">omnibus proposals</a> (these are single, sweeping legislative packages that amend or cut several existing EU laws and regulations at once).</p> <p>In addition the EU <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/06/eu-inc-corporate-master-plan-attack-our-rights">proposal</a> for a so-called 28^th regime (aptly called EU Inc), will make it easier for companies – including the very largest – to side-step national rules upholding workers’ rights, while the Commission's 'One Europe, One Market' <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/5445de81-9481-4335-9902-9756159ba614_en?filename=one-europe-one-market-roadmap.pdf">roadmap</a> lists a huge number of future problematic deregulatory, competitiveness-related initiatives, such as further omnibus packages on energy and taxation, and a new banking deregulation package to be adopted before the end of 2027. Further deregulation of <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/05/permission-pollute">permitting procedures</a> (eg for permits to build polluting projects such as mines, date centres, chemical plants) are also in the pipeline. Meanwhile the Commission recently <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_901">promised</a> a new 'Action Plan on Regulatory Deep Cleaning', an avalanche of further deregulation in 12 different policy areas, including taxation, agriculture, transport, energy, climate, digital matters, housing, and permits, and other measures which risk curtailing the democratic right of national governments to regulate in order to solve social and environmental problems.</p> <p>As Corporate Europe Observatory has recently <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/what-corporate-capture-looks">documented</a>, the Commission has directly invited industry to steer this agenda, opening up new channels of ‘consultation’ (including ‘reality checks’ and ‘implementation dialogues’) which are cementing industry’s influence at the heart of Commission decision-making.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-06/HZ_INFOGRAPHS%202026%20LOBBY%20LEAGUE%20Deregulation.jpg?itok=kcleBTE2" width="800" height="420" alt="Lobby league 2026 deregulationx" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Over-reporting and under-reporting by corporate lobbies</h3> <p>This is a portrait of corporations and their lobbyists getting more powerful in Brussels. But it is a partial portrait. That's because the EU lobby transparency register is not legally-binding and the absence of effective sanctions means the quality of the data is only as good as that which the registrants voluntarily provide.</p> <p>Concerningly, there appears to be a significant problem of corporations under-reporting their lobby budgets. That is why we believe the total lobbying budget figure of €381.75 million for these high spenders is likely to be an under-estimate. Our report and <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/3T3bZaGcnYgaGQP">dataset</a> contain several examples of possible corporate under-reporting, which we believe merit investigation by the EU lobby register secretariat.</p> <p>There is also a substantial problem of over-reporting lobby budget data. Out of the original 189 entries declaring a €1 million+ lobby budget, we removed 16 entries where that level of lobby spending seemed implausibly high, giving us the final 173 entries analysed in this briefing. More information is included in our <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/3T3bZaGcnYgaGQP">dataset</a>.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Demands</h3> <p>With some parts of decision-making being steadily captured by corporate interests at the expense of the interests of citizens, action is urgently needed to protect action on the climate and environmental pollution crises, and to preserve digital rights.</p> <p>This analysis reinforces the case for lobby firewalls to protect public decision-making from commercial interests. The <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/eu-commission-tightens-firewall-enforcement-against-tobacco-lobbyists">EU institutions</a> are already committed to protect their decision-making from tobacco lobby influence, and although this is very imperfectly implemented, it shows officials understand there is a clear and justifiable precedent for firewalls against lobbying which harms the public interest. The rationale to extend such a lobby firewall approach to protect action on the climate and environmental pollution crises, and to preserve our digital rights in the face of the threat from Big Tech, is compelling.</p> <p>As a first step, the Commission should stop providing privileged access to industry lobbies and ensure that other voices, for example from the general public, civil society, and independent scientists and researchers, are heard loud and clear. And the EU lobby transparency register must be made legally-binding on registrants, to tackle the significant problem of inaccurate data which litters the register, and which this report also highlights.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-06/HZ_INFOGRAPHS%202026%20LOBBY%20LEAGUE%20Demands.jpg?itok=pLEhkhHo" width="800" height="420" alt="Lobby league 2026 demandsx" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The full analysis is available <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/REPORT%20LOBBY%20LEAGUE._2026_0.pdf">here</a> and texts in German <a href="https://www.lobbycontrol.de/lobbyismus-in-der-eu/neuer-rekord-bei-lobbyausgaben-in-brussel-125465">here</a>. The full dataset is available <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/3T3bZaGcnYgaGQP">here</a>.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">11.06.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/06/biggest-corporate-lobby-spenders-hit-record-eu382-million-industry-friendly-agenda-speeds" hreflang="en">Biggest corporate lobby spenders hit a record €382 million as industry-friendly agenda speeds up</a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="EU corporate lobby league 2026" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/REPORT%20LOBBY%20LEAGUE._2026_0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EU corporate lobby league 2026</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Wed, 10 Jun 2026 22:01:00 +0000 Vicky Cann 2401 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/06/mass-call-reject-deregulation-gmos-ahead-european-parliament-vote-strasbourg <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">10.06.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Brussels, 10 June 2026 - </strong>A coalition of farmers, breeders, processors, beekeepers, environmentalists and citizens will mobilise in Strasbourg on 16 June to call upon MEPs to reject the deregulation of GMOs- modified by new genomic techniques (GMOs-NGTs) in a European Parliament vote on 17 June.</p> <p>The proposal for a new regulation on plants obtained by NGTs constitutes a complete deregulation of GMOs-NGTs: it plans to remove risk assessment, traceability and detection methods, liability rules and protection measures against contamination, as well as product labelling for consumers. It goes against farmers’, breeders’, beekeepers’ and citizens’ rights to produce and eat GMO-free and will seriously endanger organic and conventional non-GMO value chains. If adopted, it will cause irreversible economic, agricultural, health and environmental damages and will severely mislead citizens.</p> <p><strong>The rejection of this proposal is the only way to effectively protect existing GMO-free farming systems, their economic value and the thousands of jobs associated with them, as well as the rights of European consumers. We therefore call on the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to reject this proposal and regulate GMOs-NGTs in the current GMO legislation (Directive 2001/18/EC).</strong></p> <p>NGTs are all covered by patents, owned by a few large multinational seed companies. Without detection methods, farmers, small and medium seed companies and other operators will be unprotected in case of contamination. These patents cover genes similar to those contained in non-GMO seeds (native genes), and will thus allow these multinationals to also privatize traditional seeds that contain these genes and abusively pursue farmers and small seed producers for patent infringement.</p> <p><strong>If the proposal is not rejected during the plenary vote, we call on MEPs to support the amendments which clarify the implementation of the European Directive on patents (98/44/EC), as well as the amendments requiring traceability, detection methods, coexistence and labelling.</strong></p> <p><br>&nbsp;</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>To make our voices heard by MEPs, we will be mobilizing in front of the European Parliament on the 16 of June from 8 am to 12 am. More info </strong><a href="https://www.eurovia.org/news/16-june-farmers-mobilise-in-strasbourg-say-no-to-gmos/"><strong>here</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p> <p><strong>We invite all concerned citizens, farmers, breeders, beekeepers and processors to join this mobilisation.</strong></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>General press contact point: Alisha Sesum, </strong><a href="#" data-mail-to="cerff/ng/rhebivn/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a><strong>,&nbsp;+32 465 03 33 85/+44 7557537289</strong></p> <p><strong>Other press contacts can be found </strong><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Qf6rTbKJxhy36N3m6NtwflvrHG1RCjtaSE5oCbtzJuQ/edit?resourcekey=&amp;gid=1657999170#gid=1657999170"><strong>here</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p> <p>List of endorsing organisations (will continue to be updated <a href="https://www.eurovia.org/news/16-june-farmers-mobilise-in-strasbourg-say-no-to-gmos/">here</a>):</p> <p><br>&nbsp;</p> <p><a href="http://A.Ba.Co">A.Ba.Co</a>. Associazione di Base dei Consumatori - IT</p> <p>AEGILOPS - GR</p> <p>Agroecology Greece - GR</p> <p>Aktionsbündnis gentechnikfreie Landwirtschaft in Baden-Württemberg - DE</p> <p>Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerliche Landwirtschaft (AbL) &amp; junge AbL - DE</p> <p>Amis de la Terre des Landes - FR</p> <p>AöL - DE</p> <p>Arche Noah - AT</p> <p>ASPRO PNPP (Association pour la Promotion des Préparations Naturelles Peu Préoccupantes) - FR</p> <p>Associazione rurale italiana (ARI) - IT</p> <p>ATTAC Landes – FR</p> <p>Bioland – DE</p> <p>Beelife European Beekeeping Coordination – EU</p> <p>BUND Bundesverband - DE</p> <p>Bündnis für eine agrogentechnikfreie Region (um) Ulm - DE</p> <p>Bündnis für eine gentechnikfreie Natur und Landwirtschaft in Bayern - DE</p> <p>Bündnis für gentechnikfreie Landwirtschaft Niedersachsen, Bremen, Hamburg - DE</p> <p>Bündnis Junge ökologische Land-Lebensmittelwirtschaft (Bündnis JöLL) - DE</p> <p>Campact e.V. - DE</p> <p>Centro Internazionale Crocevia – IT</p> <p>Collectif des Faucheurs Volontaires d'OGM - FR</p> <p>Collectifs 40 - FR</p> <p>Confédération Paysanne - FR</p> <p>Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren - DE</p> <p>Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) - EU</p> <p>Dachverband Kulturpflanzen- und Nutztiervielfalt e.V. / Umbrella organisation for cultivated plant and livestock breed diversity - DE</p> <p>Deutscher Naturschutzring (DNR) - DE</p> <p>Die Freien Bäcker - Zeit für Verantwortung e.V. - DE</p> <p>Dreschflegel e.V. - DE</p> <p>Ekō - DE</p> <p>European Coordination Via Campesina (ECVC) - EU</p> <p>FIAN Deutschland e. V. - DE</p> <p>Fédération Nature &amp; Progrès - FR</p> <p>Fédération Unie de Groupements d’Eleveurs et d’Agriculteurs (FUGEA) - BE</p> <p>GIET (Groupe Intertnational d'Études Transdisciplinaires) - FR</p> <p>Grüne Liga e.V. - DE</p> <p>Gen-ethisches Netzwerk e.V. - DE</p> <p>KLB Deutschland - DE</p> <p>Kultursaat e.V. - DE</p> <p>Interessengemeinschaft für gentechnikfreie Saatgutarbeit (IG Saatgut) - DE</p> <p>Interessengemeinschaft gegen Nachbaugebühren – DE</p> <p>Junges Bioland e.V. - DE</p> <p>Kokopelli - FR</p> <p>Les Marequiers ASBL - BE</p> <p>Miljøbevægelsen NOAH / Friends of the Earth Denmark - DK</p> <p>Mouvement d'action paysanne (MAP-EPI) - BE</p> <p>Mondeggi bene comune fattoria senza padroni - IT</p> <p>NEULAND e.V. - DE</p> <p>Netzwerk Ernährungsräte (GNFPC) - DE</p> <p>Netzwerk solidarische Landwirtschaft e.V. - DE</p> <p>No patents on seeds! / Keine Patente auf Saatgut! - DE &amp; EU</p> <p>ÖBV - Via Campesina Austria - AT</p> <p>Odin - NL</p> <p>OGM dangers – FR</p> <p>Pollinis - FR</p> <p>Rapunzel Naturkost GmbH &amp; Co. KG - DE</p> <p>Réseau Li Mestère - BE</p> <p>Réseau Meuse-Rhin-Moselle, semences paysannes et citoyennes - BE</p> <p>Réseau Semences Paysannes – FR</p> <p>Rete Semi Rurali – IT</p> <p>Sachsen-gentechnikfrei - DE</p> <p>Sambucus e.V. - DE</p> <p>Save Our Seeds – DE</p> <p>SITO seeds - GR</p> <p>Slow Food Deutschland - DE</p> <p>Stiftung GEKKO – DE</p> <p>SYNABIO – FR</p> <p>The Southern Lights - FR</p> <p>Union Nationale de l'Apiculture Française - FR</p> <p>Verein für gentechnikfreie Lebensmittel (Lebensmittelschutz) - CH</p> <p>Verein Gen Au Rheinau – CH</p> <p>Vigilance OGM 46 - FR</p> <p>Zukunftsstiftung Landwirtschaft - DE</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Wed, 10 Jun 2026 13:16:00 +0000 Marcella Via 2406 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/06/eu-inc-corporate-master-plan-attack-our-rights <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">09.06.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>A primer on the eight things you need to know about “EU Inc.” and the 28^th Regime.&nbsp;</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>If you take the current temperature on political issues in the EU institutions, one is heating up by the day. The plan to reform EU company law – the rules on forming, registering, governing and dissolving a company - may look rather technical and boring at first sight. But make no mistake about it: this issue is becoming the biggest confrontation between trade unions and those pushing the current EU deregulation agenda. And what is at stake is no small matter. It is about the future ability of member states and trade unions to defend workers’ rights at national level, to ensure sufficient taxation of companies, and to fight corporate crime more generally.&nbsp;</p> <p>The Commission tabled&nbsp;<a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/3e9822aa-8cef-40a1-904e-a53fc68e7265_en?filename=Proposal%20for%20an%20EU%20Inc%20corporate%20legal%20framework.pdf">the <em>28^th Regime</em> proposal</a>, also known as “EU Inc.”,&nbsp;in March. Since then, there have been plenty of bitter exchanges, lots of polemics, and demonstrations. Still, for many the proposal itself is difficult to understand. For one, because the issue – company law – is complicated, but also secondly because the confrontations and disagreements have mostly been about what is <em>not</em> in the proposal, and what that means.&nbsp;</p> <p>This is not an issue that should be left to experts, nor to a few representatives of trade unions or NGOs in Brussels, because it is an extremely significant potential change to the EU’s approach to the regulation of companies. To help build an understanding of what is at stake, here is a tutorial – on the eight things you need to know about the plan called “EU Inc.” and “the 28^th Regime”.&nbsp;</p> <h3>1. EU Inc. emerged from corporate lobbying – hence the name</h3> <p>Let us cover some basics first – like where does this initiative come from?&nbsp;</p> <p>The so-called 28^th regime was first announced in the Letta Report, which was written by former Italian PM Enrico Letta, in May 2024. Shortly after,&nbsp;<a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683-f63ffb2cf648_en?filename=Political%20Guidelines%202024-2029_EN.pdf">in July</a> 2024, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced it as a core priority of the European Commission. To deal with “fragmentation” of the Single Market, and to do away with “national regulations that makes doing business in different EU countries more complicated,” she announced “a new EU-wide legal status to help innovative companies grow”.&nbsp;</p> <p>In reality, though, this idea has been developed and pushed for by coalitions of companies, particularly venture capital and the tech industry, not least those organised in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.eu-inc.org/">the EU Inc. coalition</a> (see also our&nbsp;September 2025 article: who is lobbying for the 28^th Regime). Most of the original content from the corporate coalition’s proposal is recognisable in the Commission’s final version. And it even bears the same name - EU Inc. - alongside that strange term “the 28^th regime” - which indicates that there are 27 member states, each with their own regime/rulebook, and that this represents the European one - the 28^th.&nbsp;</p> <p>The EU Inc. coalition was delighted at this success, describing it as “a big moment” on its website. But business is never satisfied, so at the same time it complained that the Commission&nbsp;<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/this-week-the-upcoming-proposal-on-eu-inc-share-7438232050144419840-bUYa/?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop&amp;rcm=ACoAACd93fsBsKYhlCwUIUHPRjanx_jDGVwFA0Y">left out some of its ideas</a> - such as a European database and registry.&nbsp;</p> <p>The proposal has only grown bigger over time. Initially, the Commission and the lobbyists spoke almost entirely of the need to support ‘innovative companies’ or startups. But the final proposal covers <em>all</em> enterprises - any private company can become an EU Inc. company. The door is open too, for large companies to make use of this company form that will allow them to circumvent national rules, for instance by separating part of their activities into a different entity to gain a tax advantage, to avoid specific regulation, or even to undermine workers’ rights.&nbsp;</p> <h3>2. 48 hours to register an EU Inc. company – an attractive tool for criminals</h3> <p>Under the proposal, it will be extremely easy to register a company. The whole registration process will take no more than 48 hours, and the authorities will have five days to approve it. Such a company will also enjoy all the rights that other companies registered under other provisions do. If the company is registered in Spain as a Spanish EU Inc. company, it will at the same time be ready to operate freely in Poland, Finland, Greece or any other member state.&nbsp;</p> <p>Authorities will have access to the same basic information about the company. But when the company operates outside the member state it registered in, it will be on the basis of an extremely fast registration process, with no easy access to further information. &nbsp;</p> <p><a href="https://data.riksdagen.se/fil/E9857E41-A3EE-4874-9670-8FAA9BACA38C">A Swedish government&nbsp;document</a> on their national stakeholder consultation sheds light on the concerns expressed by Swedish organisations about this proposal – public and private. The verdict from the police, the economic crime authority, the tax authorities, the enforcement authority (responsible for debt collection, evictions, enforcement of court orders), and the prosecution authority, is pretty damning: “there is a risk that the EU Inc. company will become an attractive tool for criminals, as it is easy, quick, and inexpensive to form such a company.”</p> <h3>3. Undermining workers’ rights - the “country-of-origin principle” returns</h3> <p>In January 2025, when the Commission published its roadmap of acts to support European competitiveness, it said it would set out to “simplify applicable rules and reduce the cost of failure, including any relevant aspects of corporate law, insolvency, labour and tax law.”</p> <p>This fired up temperaments. A proposal that would amend labour and tax laws in order to make life easier for companies sounded ominous to many across the EU.&nbsp;</p> <p>When the proposal was finally released in March 2026, the main elements were standard company law components. A new form of limited liability company, an EU Inc., was to come into being, and the regulation tabled by the Commission included rules on how to register, govern, dissolve, and how to build a European database of, such companies.&nbsp;</p> <p>At first sight, it appears that there is very little in the proposal about taxation or labour laws. There is no appetite to harmonise laws in those areas, clearly. But that does not mean that EU Inc. will have no implications for taxation or labour rights. In fact, its outcome can indeed be disastrous for workers across Europe, and for member states’ ability to tax companies. When&nbsp;<a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-promises-new-startup-48-hour-delaware-regime-wont-lead-bad-bosses-boom/">Michael McGrath</a>, the European Commissioner in charge of the file, claims that it will not impinge on labour rights, this is clearly not true.&nbsp;</p> <p>The key issue is article 4.2 of the regulation, which stipulates, that matters “not covered” by the EU Inc. regulation, “shall be governed by national law.” In short, this is the return of the dreaded “country-of-origin principle”, the Bolkestein Directive (proposed in 2004), which became notorious from a previous attack on workers’ rights. This would mean that when it comes to collective agreements, working conditions and workplace rights, companies are governed by the law in the country they registered in.&nbsp;</p> <p>This would allow companies to establish themselves in a country they have little or no activity in, but which conveniently has low standards on wages and workers’ rights. They can then apply this to their employees in countries with higher standards.</p> <p>Arguments can be made, that some rights will be safeguarded, but article 4.2 reopens Pandora’s box. Clever and cynical employers have proved to be good at exploiting any doubt whether collective agreements and workers rights from the host country apply. Commissioner McGrath has made no effort to introduce barriers to such behaviour in the 28^th Regime he is proposing.&nbsp;</p> <h3>4. Enabling ‘regime shopping’ to attack collective agreements and workers’ rights&nbsp;</h3> <p>As well as the risk of economic and other crimes, an equally serious potential outcome is that the proposal will facilitate the use of letterbox companies and ‘regime shopping’. When companies can change nationality, or simply form a new company for special use within a short few days, then the road is cleared to attack collective agreements and workers’ rights. Particularly when companies get new legal tools that enable them to claim national laws or collective agreements do not apply to them.&nbsp;</p> <p>The trick is to make sure the company is registered in a country with low wages and minimal labour rights, and then pay your workers on that basis when they work in another member state that has higher wages. Not only that, but you can also undermine working hour limits, right to vacation, or pension contributions.&nbsp;</p> <p><a href="https://www.somo.nl/download/40448/?tmstv=1780140447">A case study looking at the use of letterbox companies and regime-shopping by the German meat industry</a> has it all: companies established with the sole purpose of creating the ability to over-exploit workers with low wages and terrible working conditions. Sometimes the companies are created directly by the factory in question, sometimes they are set up by ruthless go-betweens whose only skill is not giving a damn about workers, their welfare and often even their lives.&nbsp;</p> <p>This type of ‘regime shopping’ is something hundreds of companies have practiced over the years, and the social dumping it enables has been a major factor in the brutalisation of work in recent decades in Europe. All kinds of tricks have been used to allow companies to undercut wages and subject workers to horrible working conditions. A key factor has always been whether the company was domestic or not, and whether EU law provided a loophole to underpin the anti-rights strategy.&nbsp;</p> <p>With the EU Inc. proposal workers would lose out further, and be even more at risk of unscrupulous operators focused only on profit.&nbsp;</p> <h3>5. EU Inc. will help companies slip under the radar of authorities and unions</h3> <p>Apart from the fact that the proposal will leave companies more legal space to claim local collective agreements or labour law do not apply to them, it will also allow them to go under the radar of both the authorities and trade unions, if they operate as an EU Inc. company. Even if there would somehow be a clear legal assurance in the law text of workers rights, the measures taken to reduce reporting and registration would take us in the opposite direction.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;Wherever it has been tried to act to address social dumping, a key issue was whether the domestic and foreign entities involved in undercutting collective agreements and/or labour laws could be spotted in the first place, to ensure that national or local rules were enforced on them. In some countries, the maintenance of national registers of foreign companies operating in the country have been absolutely crucial in the fight against social dumping.</p> <p>The EU Inc. proposal however attempts to cut down the requirement that companies inform authorities or the public about their operation. Even basic information, like the number of employees of a company, would not be publicly available under this proposal.&nbsp;</p> <p>The EU Inc. proposal will also provide a major opportunity to those who like the game of hide-and-seek. Among the requirements that member states will not be able to impose on an EU Inc. company, is to have a physical presence in the country where they operate, or a local representative.</p> <p>In some member states, registers of foreign companies have been carefully compiled over the years, in order to enable the authorities and trade unions to meet the challenge posed by social dumping. The EU Inc. proposal is a cold shower that may wash those efforts down the drain.&nbsp;</p> <h3>6. It will help companies to shirk employee participation and information rights</h3> <p>In many EU countries, workers have successfully fought for the right to be represented at board level in the companies that employ them. The threshold that triggers the right to be represented, however, is vastly different from country to country. In Germany it is required for companies of 500 employees, while in Denmark it is 35, in Sweden 25, and in the Netherlands 100. In some countries there is no right to board level representation whatsoever - Bulgaria for instance.&nbsp;</p> <p>Here the EU Inc. model can come to the rescue of employers seeking to shirk this obligation. All the owner will have to do is to make sure the company is first registered in a country with no right to employee participation. The proposal’s article 12 states explicitly that the right to employee participation follows the “rules applicable in the Member State in which it has its registered office.”</p> <p>Previous experience with European companies confirms that regime-shopping to avert obligations requiring employee representation at board level is not new. An earlier European company form, the SE (Societas Europaea, European form for a public company, with its shares sold publicly), which entered into force in 2004, confirms this. According&nbsp;<a href="https://www.etui.org/sites/default/files/2025-09/How%20a%2028th%20company%20law%20regime%20jeopardises%20workers%20rights_2025.pdf">to the European Trade Union Institute</a>, “three-quarters of known cases of circumvention in Germany are based on structures that are facilitated by European company law”.&nbsp;</p> <p>When it comes to the right to information, there is a similar pattern of avoidance. Out of a total of 4,900 SE companies, only 247 appear to have bodies for workers information and consultation (works councils). SE companies are ‘public’ companies, with shares sold publicly, whereas he proposed EU Inc./28^th regime companies are private liability companies. But the impact on the right to information for employees, the impact will hardly be different.&nbsp;</p> <h3>7. Letterbox companies will become an even better tool for tax evasion</h3> <p>As we have shown, the EU Inc. plan will make it so much easier to register a company and have it approved and certified. One of the business communities that will rejoice at this development will be those who create letterbox companies with no other purpose than evading taxation. It is so easy to create a corporate branch to which the profit can be transferred, arguing for instance that copyrights or patents are owned by that particular branch. And whoops, the profit is gone, and so is the need to pay taxes.&nbsp;</p> <p>This trick already exists in many forms. However, the ease with which you can create a new company, and the speed and scarce information you will need to provide under this new EU Inc. provision, is bound to oil the tax evasion machine even further.&nbsp;</p> <p>And that’s not all, as the German notaries in the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bnotk.de/en/tasks-and-activities/magazines/bnotk-international/details/eu-inc-a-28th-regime-of-uncertainty">Bundesnotarkammer</a> point out: the obsession with transferring all information digitally will make it easy to mislead the notaries that check people’s identities. Only automated data checks are allowed, and the “resulting lack of transparency facilitates abuse, such as the acquisition of company shares through the use of pirated access data (‘corporate hijacking’), and increases the risks of tax evasion, shell companies and money laundering.”&nbsp;</p> <h3>8. The risk of building a new company will be shouldered by the public purse&nbsp;</h3> <p>The basic idea behind many elements of the EU Inc. plan is to allow entrepreneurs, present or future company owners, to just go ahead and not worry too much about the risks. Their stake, the risk they carry in setting up an enterprise, is therefore reduced in various ways. To begin with, there are no own capital standards - with zero capital requirement. Meaning if you want to start a company, you can do that with one single solitary euro.&nbsp;</p> <p>Also, many elements in the proposal are supposed to reduce oversight at times when authorities should step in to stop experiments that will lead only to expensive bankruptcies. These are of course expensive for the public purse and investors. As the EU Inc. plan is about ‘limited liability companies’, the owners’ personal fortunes will be left untouched in case of a collapse. A simplified insolvency procedure is included in the plan, one that worries the Swedish federation for civil servants: “This must not enable”, they say in their contribution to the Swedish government’s consultation, “unscrupulous companies or companies without a realistic business idea to easily shift costs onto the public and just start anew.”</p> <p>Finally, part of the proposal is to harmonise taxation rules for warrants (or ‘stock options’) - the right, given to employees, to buy shares in their company at a later stage. One way of paying staff less is to offer them just that, as a substitute for a decent salary – something that troubles trade unions across Europe. According to the Swedish federation for civil servants TCO, this may mean that a company’s risk is “transferred to its employees”, with the result that “if a company becomes insolvent or goes bankrupt, employee share options risk becoming worthless.”&nbsp;</p> <h3>Chasing unicorns - why is the EU so keen on this corporate proposal?</h3> <p>Essentially, the 28^th Regime, aka the EU Inc. proposal, is about multiple strands of corporate friendly deregulation. By establishing extremely minimal requirements, and lowering the bar on rules governing the formation of a company, as well as allowing regime shopping and the race-to-the-bottom it will ignite, the EU proposes significantly weakening corporate governance across Europe. Everything can go wrong with such proposals.&nbsp;</p> <p>Given this, the burning question is, why did the 28^th Regime gain steam in the first place? Besides simple, crude, self-interested lobbying, it is about an EU dream of nurturing European industrial unicorns. The EU aspires to see European companies be innovative, and take the global market by storm, preferably with fancy new digital technology.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p> <p>But recent history offers tangible warnings about what a cocktail of blind faith in innovators and reckless deregulation can lead to. Take&nbsp;<a href="https://quartr.com/insights/edge/the-rise-and-fall-of-wirecard">the Wirecard scandal</a> - involving an enterprise in the payment services industry, one of the few seemingly super-successful innovative actors in the German tech industry. To provide maximum space for growth, regulation and oversight of the company was minimal, and it all seemed to work well for years. Until it turned out that the company was actually insolvent – rotten to the core financially. A German adventure in the world of digital technology transformed from dreams of a unicorn, to arrests, disappearances, and a costly drain on the public purse in a matter of weeks.&nbsp;</p> <p>In fact, we could take it to another level entirely as we consider cautionary tales: the dot com bubble and the ensuing crisis in 2000-2001. In the preceding years, the US authorities had taken a series of steps to remove regulatory hurdles to the growth of the digital sector, including limits on financing. That had disastrous consequences. As one&nbsp;<a href="https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/63923">financial analyst</a> recalls: “Those years encouraged innovation and deregulation, but by weakening oversight they also opened the door to mis-selling and conflicts of interest.” The price was a major economic slump for the biggest economy in the world and a loss of 5 trillion dollars of market value, through the famous dot com crisis.&nbsp;</p> <h3>Workers will pay the price</h3> <p>The first victims of this EU unicorn obsession are easy to see. The proposal comes at a time when employers have intensified attacks on workers’ rights and living conditions at all levels, including a political offensive on the Brussels lobbying front. The 28^th Regime is one of several examples of employers and corporate lobby groups pushing for the right to unlimited plunder and exploitation. The construction industry, the meat industry, and agriculture are three sectors infamous for structured attacks on workers’ rights, with horrible outcomes. But another major challenge is, ironically, the very tech sector that the 28^th Regime is intended to support in the first place. Outside the institutions, we see for instance, Elon Musk and Tesla employ aggressive anti-union strategies, reminiscent of bygone eras. And we see platform workers subjected to horrifying working conditions. Prolonged struggles are taking place across Europe to contain their attacks, including legal battles over who is even considered a worker, and hence eligible for workers’ rights.&nbsp;</p> <h3>Stop the 28^th Regime!</h3> <p>Ultimately, the 28^th Regime is a proposal with very little merit and loaded with serious risks. It is true that the proposal could easily be improved, for instance by inserting a clause that would exempt any labour law or collective agreement from being negatively impacted. But since the core of the plan is about easing oversight and reducing transparency, there is little if any chance that such changes would really contain negative outcomes.&nbsp;</p> <p>In Europe, social dumping has been an endless game of hide-and-seek. Handing over a tool such as EU Inc. to greedy, unscrupulous company owners and directors would be to essentially hand them an invisibility cloak that would put them below the radar for authorities and trade unions, and give them the upper hand when it comes to workplace conditions.&nbsp;</p> <p>The best strategy, then, is to denounce the new regime entirely, and to insist that the EU institutions drop it. Campaigns are underway all over Europe, led by trade unions. Now is the time to boost these campaigns.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <h3><em>Recommended reading:</em></h3> <p>Marcus Meyer-Erdmann, <a href="https://www.etui.org/publications/innovation-or-evasion-how-28th-regime-eu-inc-undermines-collective-rights-and-shifts"><em>Innovation or evasion? How the 28th Regime ‘EU Inc.’ undermines collective rights and shifts corporate risk on to workers</em></a><em>,&nbsp;</em>ETUI, May 2026.&nbsp;</p> <p>ETUC, <a href="https://etuc.org/en/pressrelease/unions-call-halt-28th-company-regime-until-safeguards-workers-rights-are-included"><em>Unions call for a halt on 28^th company regime</em></a>, 27 May 2026.</p> <p>Katrin McGauran, <a href="https://www.etuc.org/sites/default/files/press-release/files/ces_letterbox_compagnies_gb_juin_ok_0.pdf">The impact of letterbox – type practices on labour rights and public revenue</a>, ETUC &amp; SOMO, July 2016.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Tue, 09 Jun 2026 08:53:00 +0000 Kenneth Haar 2405 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Helping civil society monitor the deregulation agenda </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">08.06.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/single-market" hreflang="en">Single market</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Commission President von der Leyen has made very clear that the EU’s priority for the next five years will be to boost industry’s "competitiveness", including through deregulation of EU rules that industry perceives as burdensome. <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave">This deregulation campaign</a> includes roll-back of existing social and environmental standards, more hurdles for new progressive EU regulation, escape routes allowing companies to avoid regulation, as well as new hurdles for national level regulation.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Von der Leyen’s deregulation agenda was heavily inspired by <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/competitiveness-inside-troubling-corporate-blueprint-coming-commission">corporate lobbying campaigns</a> and it now provides unprecedented opportunities for corporate lobby groups to determine the shape of future EU legislation and roll back social and environmental standards in existing EU laws.</p> <p>Corporate Europe Observatory has set up Deregulation Watch to help civil society monitor new developments in the deregulation agenda, assess what’s at stake, and organise in defense of strong social, environmental and human rights protections.&nbsp;</p> <p><em>We would be grateful for any insights on the EU deregulation offensive, including on corporate lobbying activities, that you may want to share with us. Insights can be sent to </em><a href="#" data-mail-to="prb/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h1 style="display:none;">Deregulation Monitor</h1><h1 style="display:none;">Deregulation Watch</h1></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2025-12/banner_0.png?itok=7eJLWkAM" width="800" height="281" alt="Click the link in the caption for more info on the European Commission’s omnibus packages" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-description field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/RjrwKPiTmmZM5BG">Click here for more info on the European Commission’s omnibus packages.</a></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--block paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-block field--type-block-field field--label-hidden field__item"> <div class="views-element-container block block-views block-views-blockmicroblog-block-1" id="block-views-block-microblog-block-1"> <div><div class="view view-microblog view-id-microblog view-display-id-block_1 js-view-dom-id-b4062d03f1a725198c6da4ec6486dfc20c6462a0d03ff02f4326ed02a25c8e3e"> <div class="view-content"> <div class="views-row"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><h2 class="field-content">Commission asks polluting industry, are workers’ rights bothering you?</h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><time datetime="2026-06-08T15:03:00+02:00" title="Monday, June 8, 2026 - 15:03" class="datetime">8 Jun 2026</time> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-paragraphs"><div class="field-content"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Sector: </strong>chemicals, industrial policy, climate</p> <p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>EU survey asks petrochemicals companies if “regulatory hurdles” like worker exposure limits, climate policies, pollution limits, and permitting rules are “hindering” investment.</li> <li>The Commission is once again inviting Europe’s biggest polluters to say what environmental and social protection rules they want thrown on the bonfire of competitiveness.</li> </ul> <dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt><strong>What you need to know</strong></dt> <dd> <p>In our recent report, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/05/permission-pollute">Permission to Pollute</a>, we explored some of the new and existing channels of influence that are giving Europe’s most polluting companies the reins to drive the deregulation of permitting rules, and the vital protections that underpin them.</p> <p>One key channel is via Industrial Alliances – official alliances between the Commission and specific industries, such as <a href="https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/industry/industrial-alliances/european-clean-hydrogen-alliance_en">hydrogen</a> and <a href="https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/industry/industrial-alliances/european-raw-materials-alliance_en">raw materials</a> – described <a href="https://friendsoftheearth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/The-EUs-Industrial-Alliances.pdf">by environmental groups</a> as “self-regulation” projects that give vested interests like fossil fuel and mining companies the opportunity to shape policy and direct public funding. Yet the von der Leyen Commission, intent on expanding this model of regulatory-capture, has been setting up new ones, including on <a href="https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/chemicals/critical-chemicals-alliance_en">chemicals</a>. The Critical Chemical Alliance’s <a href="https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/document/download/1bdc2fe7-d5f5-42af-a303-9307ca8b44fd_en?filename=CCA%20list%20of%20member%20organisations%20%28v.2026-01-26%29.pdf">members include</a> petrochemicals firms like ExxonMobil, TotalEnergies, Bayer, and BASF, as well as <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/reaching-out">influential chemicals lobby group</a> CEFIC.</p> <p>Soon after Permission to Pollute was published, and as part of our research for an upcoming report on the Critical Chemicals Alliance, we were tipped off that the Commission was running a survey for members of the Alliance. It asks <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/Regulatory_hurdles_for_modernisation_investments_and_innovation#page1">what “regulatory hurdles” hinder their investments</a>. Companies were invited to identify specific regulations in a wide range of areas and say whether they are a minor drawback, a major one, or even a “showstopper”. To name just a few of the “hurdles” the Commission asked companies about:</p> <ul> <li>workers’ rights – including “occupational exposure limits” to things like cancer-causing chemicals, “major accident rules”, and even “unions”;</li> <li>permitting – including “public consultation” and “environmental permits”;</li> <li>industrial environmental compliance obligations – including pollution limits to air, water, and soil, not to mention “drought restrictions” and “biodiversity assessments”;</li> <li>regulations on carbon capture, transport and storage – including permitting and liability (check out our <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-05/CEO%20Permission%20to%20pollute_WEB.pdf">CO2 pipeline case study</a> to find out why weaker permitting rules for this dangerous infrastructure, being pushed by Big Oil as part of the carbon capture con, are a bad idea).</li> </ul> <p>Let's spell this out: the European Commission is asking big polluters like ExxonMobil and Bayer to say which rules protecting worker’s health and the environment from toxic chemicals and deadly pollutants they consider the biggest obstacles to investment. All with the aim of creating a “Charter that moves beyond standard industry asks and focuses on practical, investment-relevant solutions.”</p> <p>Curious about the results? So are we. The survey promises that “all responses will be treated as confidential”. Time to roll up our sleeves and see if we can find out more via the legal right to <a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/submissions_to_survey_of_critica">access to documents</a>: watch this space.</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> , <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-06/Regulatory%20hurdles%20-%20workers%20rights.png?itok=P5rlmhUV" width="800" height="606" alt="Screenshot of EUSurvey on &quot;Regulatory hurdles for modernisation investments and innovation&quot;, section on workforce legislation" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div></div></div> <div class="views-row"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><h2 class="field-content">EU Commission's 'Better Regulation' reform institutionalises undemocratic highspeed deregulation methods</h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><time datetime="2026-05-12T08:56:00+02:00" title="Tuesday, May 12, 2026 - 08:56" class="datetime">12 May 2026</time> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-paragraphs"><div class="field-content"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong><br>• Instead of halting its heavily criticised methods for producing Omnibus proposals at speed, the Commission intends to change its rules to enable more of this.&nbsp;<br>• The Commission’s new 'Better Regulation' Communication also includes sweeping new deregulation plans for twelve different policy areas, on top of last month’s 'One Europe, One Market Roadmap'.<br>• The Commission's approach mirrors the advice of Argentina’s minister for deregulation: disorient your opposition by deregulating lots of provisions and sectors simultaneously.</p> <dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt><strong>What you need to know</strong></dt> <dd> <p>At the end of April, the European Commission published a 'Communication on Better Regulation', setting out plans to adapt its internal decision-making processes, known as the 'Better Regulation Guidelines'. These reform plans are widely regarded as a response to strong criticism from the European Ombudsman regarding the Commission's development of its Omnibus packages, the main instrument in its deregulation agenda. The ten Omnibus packages launched in 2025 were prepared without an impact assessment, instead using 'targeted consultation' with handpicked corporate lobbyists rather than the inclusive public consultation methods outlined in the Better Regulation Guidelines. The European Ombudsman ruled that the Commission had violated its own rules by failing to conduct impact assessments, climate consistency checks and public consultations for its Omnibus proposals.</p> <p>As the trade union confederation <a href="https://etuc.org/en/pressrelease/eu-rule-making-overhaul-risks-sidelining-workers-voices-warns-etuc">ETUC</a> points out, “rather than addressing these shortcomings, the Commission now appears to be adapting its internal rulebook to normalise this new approach”: “a less transparent and less participative approach, where hand-picked corporate lobbyists have privileged access”. <a href="https://www.clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press-releases/eu-s-better-regulation-update-fails-to-put-science-and-people-back-at-the-heart-of-lawmaking/">ClientEarth</a> confirms that “broad and unclear exemptions to the rule, based on ‘urgency’, could allow the Commission to continue bypassing its own standards”. The <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/european-coalition-for-corporate-justice-eccj-_joint-press-release-eu-watchdog-slams-commission-activity-7455540242893299712-pHkp/?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop&amp;rcm=ACoAAADZhu0BUdaplanauEZ3l56nN8Nyneh1hAI">ECCJ</a> called the Commission’s ‘smarter and more flexible consultation system’ “a smokescreen for shrinking civil society’s voice while granting privileged access to big busines”. In a detailed assessment, Professor <a href="https://verfassungsblog.de/deregulating-better-regulation/">Alberto Alemanno</a> warns of “constitutional regression” and questions “whether this new policy is compatible with Article 11(3) of the EU Treaty”, which requires “broad consultations with parties concerned”. The Commission’s use of ‘targeted consultations’, Alemanno warns, “systematically favours well-resourced stakeholders.” For details on the Commission’s use of ‘targeted consultations’ to produce deregulation proposals at high speed, see <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/REPORT_CORPORATE%20CAPTURE.pdf">CEO’s indepth report published last month</a>.</p> <p>To make matters worse, the Communication contains much more than just the planned changes to the Better Regulation Guidelines. The Commission outlines additional measures to prevent governments from 'gold-plating', whereby governments choose higher social and environmental standards when implementing EU directives. The Communication's annexes announce a new 'Action Plan on Regulatory Deep Cleaning', which details the Commission's deregulation ambitions in twelve different policy areas, including taxation, agriculture, transport, energy, climate, digital matters, housing, and permits. The annexes also contain numerous new measures aimed at clamping down on 'regulatory barriers' in the single market. These measures risk curtailing the democratic right of national governments to regulate in order to solve social and environmental problems.</p> <p>It’s a lot! And just a few weeks ago, the EU agreed on the 'One Europe, One Market Roadmap' (see Deregulation Watch 27 April 2026), which also contained over 40 different initiatives, all with deadlines of just 6–18 months. This is much faster than normal EU decision-making processes. Such a rapid pace of decision-making on so many deregulation initiatives simultaneously prevents an informed public debate from emerging, particularly at the level of the member states. It overwhelms civil society groups and trade unions, who lack the capacity to campaign against rollbacks on so many issues simultaneously.&nbsp;</p> <p>Interestingly, the Commission’s approach is exactly what Federico Sturzenegger, minister for deregulation in Argentinian President Milei’s government, recommends. Milei’s "chainsaw" campaign weakened or eliminated hundreds of laws within just a couple of years, with severe social and environmental impacts. In the article '<a href="https://www.cato.org/commentary/what-britain-eu-can-learn-argentina-deregulation">What Britain and the EU Can Learn from Argentina on Deregulation'</a>, published by the hardline neoliberal Cato Institute, Sturzenegger warns that “picking fights with one sector or group at a time for deregulation will ensure failure.” “The answer” to overcoming opposition from “interest groups and stakeholders”, Sturzenegger states, “is to deregulate lots of provisions and sectors simultaneously. That thins any media campaigns, disorients your opposition, and flips the political economy.“</p> <p>It remains to be seen whether the Commission will succeed in its high-speed deregulation agenda. There are clear signs that governments are no longer unquestioningly supporting the Commission's agenda (see Deregulation Watch, 27 April 2026). Civil society groups and trade unions are pushing back through initiatives such as the <a href="https://handsoffnature.eu/">Hands Off Nature</a> campaign, the <a href="https://rulestoprotect.eu/">‘Rules to Protect’ coalition</a> and national-level anti-deregulation coalitions like <a href="https://www.kettensaege-stoppen.at/">Kettensäge Stoppen!</a> In Austria.</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div></div></div> <div class="views-row"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><h2 class="field-content">AI Omnibus deal puts fundamental rights at risk and creates legal complexity</h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><time datetime="2026-05-08T18:16:00+02:00" title="Friday, May 8, 2026 - 18:16" class="datetime">8 May 2026</time> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-paragraphs"><div class="field-content"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>The EU Parliament and national governments reached a deal in the early morning on 7 May.</li> <li>While some egregious proposals of the EU Commission were removed, last-minute pressure from industry, the EPP and the German government resulted in carve-outs for industrial AI increasing legal complexity.</li> <li>Risky AI systems will be able to enter the market without any safeguards until December 2027.</li> <li>Following the Grok sexual deepfake scandal, the European Parliament and national governments included a ban on ‘nudifier systems’, though questions remain about its effectiveness.</li> </ul> <dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt><strong>What you need to know</strong></dt> <dd> <p>After a marathon negotiation that lasted until the early morning of 7 May, the EU Parliament and national governments reached a deal to water down the Artificial Intelligence Act. As Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl previously <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/article-article-how-big-tech-shaped-eus-roll-back-digital-rights">documented</a>, the Commission’s Digital Omnibus proposal closely mirrored key lobby demands from Big Tech companies. In recent weeks, severe tensions between member states and a breakdown in negotiations were caused by a lobbying push from European industry, including Siemens and Bosch, headed by the tech lobby group DigitalEurope, to exempt a range of AI applications.<br><br>The deal marks a severe weakening of key protections and adds legal complexity, but will likely benefit large industrial players, and Big Tech companies.</p> <p><strong>Adding legal complexity</strong></p> <p>In March, the European Parliament added a highly contentious amendment to the AI omnibus that would exempt products covered by other sectoral legislation, including machinery, toys, and medical devices, from the AI Act. Stunningly, AI requirements would then be re-introduced at some future unspecified date via twelve separate sectoral regulatory regimes, greatly increasing legal uncertainty and complexity, but, of course, creating large loopholes for big business.</p> <p>In an open letter co-signed by the CEO, a group of 36 civil society organisations warned that the Parliament’s proposal would not only weaken product safety and consumer protection, but also “introduce unnecessary complexity and uncertainty into the EU governance of AI”. While most national governments resisted the change, German Chancellor Merz intervened directly in the negotiations, and <a href="https://www.heise.de/en/news/Chancellor-Merz-Make-European-AI-regulation-easier-11264952.html">together</a> with industrial giants such as Siemens, ASML and Bosch, exerted exceptional pressure to get the amendment approved. After a week-long standoff, machinery was exempted from the AI Act as part of a final compromise, but not other products such as medical devices.</p> <p>In a reaction, the digital rights organisation EDRi hit the nail on the head: “As with other Omnibus proposals, the message is clear: when powerful actors complain loudly enough, safeguards can be recast as burdens, and rules that protect people can be reopened.”</p> <p><strong>Undermining fundamental rights</strong></p> <p>The AI Omnibus will also postpone the implementation of high-risk AI obligations until December 2027 – a key Big Tech <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/article-article-how-big-tech-shaped-eus-roll-back-digital-rights">demand</a>. This will allow companies to continue releasing risky AI systems onto the market without any safeguards. The risks are far from hypothetical, ranging from <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54698858">algorithmic-powered employee firings</a> to <a href="https://www.axios.com/2020/08/19/england-exams-algorithm-grading">biased algorithms that disadvantage students</a> based on their socio-economic background. Highly problematic AI systems are already in circulation.&nbsp;</p> <p>Fortunately, the European Parliament and member states rejected some egregious proposals. For example, a Commission proposal to remove the public database in which tech companies must register the AI systems these companies deem exempt from high-risk classification was rejected. The <a href="https://www.edf-feph.org/publications/a-call-to-eu-legislators-protect-rights-and-reject-the-call-to-delete-transparency-safeguard-in-ai-act/">estimated cost savings of €100 per company</a> were so low that only the EU Commission thought this was a good idea.</p> <p>The Grok deepfake scandal also created the necessary backlash to garner support for a ban on nudifier apps, even though questions remain about the <a href="https://www.techpolicy.press/eu-moves-to-regulate-ai-nudification-but-key-challenges-remain/">effectiveness</a> of the proposed ban.</p> <p>The deregulation of the AI Act is only the first step in the Commission's far-reaching and misguided plans to weaken the EU’s digital rulebook in an attempt to please big business and the MAGA controlled White House.</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div></div></div> <div class="views-row"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><h2 class="field-content">The EU’s 'One Europe, One Market Roadmap': a gargantuan deregulation push that’s leading Europe down a dead end</h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><time datetime="2026-04-27T18:15:00+02:00" title="Monday, April 27, 2026 - 18:15" class="datetime">27 Apr 2026</time> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-paragraphs"><div class="field-content"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>&nbsp;the European Parliament and governments secured significant last minute changes to the Commission’s draft 'One Europe, One Market Roadmap', signed during last week's EU summit in Cyprus</li> <li>quite a few terrible deregulation commitments that were in the draft roadmap were removed during last-minute talks</li> <li>but the Commission got green light for Single Market deregulation on ten areas – and by signing the roadmap, parliament and governments have agreed to rush Omnibuses, "EU Inc" and a huge number of other deregulation initiatives through EU decision-making at unprecedented speed</li> </ul> <dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt><strong>What you need to know</strong></dt> <dd> <p>In the run-up to the Cyprus summit the EU, <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/news/exclusive-eu-rolls-back-ambition-in-new-single-market-plan/">as Euractiv put it</a>, "radically scaled down the ambition" of <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/5445de81-9481-4335-9902-9756159ba614_en?filename=one-europe-one-market-roadmap.pdf">the “One Europe, One Market” roadmap</a>. The Commission’s proposal to include binding "targets for final adoption" of deregulation initiatives was "downgraded to target dates for reaching a political agreement". Due to <a href="https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/brussels-playbook/ukraine-upstages-middle-east-at-eu-summit/">pressure from progressive MEPs</a> references to the “European Pillar of social rights” and a future review “to encompass the social dimension of the Single Market” were added to the roadmap. Some deeply problematic proposals originating from the list of demands presented by hard-right government leaders Merz and Meloni earlier this year (see Deregulation Watch <strong>March 13^th 2026) </strong>were removed from the roadmap.</p> <p>In the draft roadmap, the three EU institutions were to “commit to a structural reduction of administrative burdens” as well as seven specific commitments, such as ”refraining from introducing new obstacles or barriers, including through goldplating and unduly divergent national approaches”. A blanket promise to refrain from 'new obstacles or barriers' would have been hugely problematic, because what constitutes an ‘obstacle’ or ‘barrier’ in the Single Market is often a matter of political interpretation. <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/30%20Years%20of%20EU%20Single%20Market-Report-Final.pdf">Corporate lobby groups routinely file complaints</a> against entirely legitimate national government rules on social or environmental protection, arguing these are Single Market 'barriers' that should be removed, expecting the European Commission to intervene. One example is the Commission’s intervention against the French government’s new law to tackle the growing problem of hugely wasteful and polluting 'fast fashion'. Following complaints by corporate lobby groups, the Commission paused the final adoption of the French law until changes are made. In <a href="https://eeb.org/en/eu-commission-must-not-curtail-member-states-from-taking-on-fashion-overproduction/">a letter last month</a>, 65 civil society groups defended the French law as “a unique opportunity to truly tackle the harmful model of overproduction in the clothing industry”.”</p> <p>The proposed ban on so-called ‘goldplating’ was an attempt to close the space available to member states to introduce more ambitious social and environmental standards than those agreed in EU level directives (see also Deregulation Watch March 13th 2026). Luckily this was removed from the roadmap, although the Commission and hard-right governments are likely to try to get this back on the agenda before long.</p> <p><a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/5445de81-9481-4335-9902-9756159ba614_en?filename=one-europe-one-market-roadmap.pdf">The roadmap</a> still contains a huge number of problematic deregulatory initiatives and therefore requires critical scrutiny and public debate. There’s an appendix of over 40 'priority deliverables', competitiveness-related initiatives that the Commission has already launched (such as the ten Omnibus packages introduced in 2025 and the proposal for a new 'EU Inc.' company law status) or planned initiatives such as new Omnibus packages on energy and taxation. Worryingly, the list also includes a new banking deregulation package to be adopted before the end of 2027. By signing the roadmap, Parliament and governments “commit to working towards a swift agreement on all the legislative proposals set out in the annex, treating them as political priorities”.</p> <p>The roadmap includes a commitment to “a more integrated Single Market including by removing the ten most harmful barriers’. This refers to what the Commission has termed <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/881209/Factsheet%20-%20Single%20Market%20Strategy.pdf">'the terrible 10 barriers'</a>. These are not specific barriers but ten broad problem areas, including 'restrictive and diverging national services regulation', with a focus on specific service sectors such as construction and retail. It’s worth remembering that a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2020/11/wakeup-call-european-commission-its-failed-power-grab-over-local-services">previous Commission initiative to deregulate national-level service rules</a> was defeated in 2020. Opponents of the Services Notification Directive included the mayors of Barcelona, Amsterdam and Paris, who were rightly concerned that the directive would restrict their ability to regulate AirBnB's activities, which were causing significant housing affordability issues in their cities. Worryingly, <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/881209/Factsheet%20-%20Single%20Market%20Strategy.pdf">the Commission’s document</a> on dismantling the 'terrible ten barriers' makes no mention of preserving social and environmental protection, or the right of public authorities to regulate in the public interest.</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div></div></div> <div class="views-row"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><h2 class="field-content">Food and environmental safety dillution through European Biotech Act?</h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><time datetime="2026-04-24T18:14:00+02:00" title="Friday, April 24, 2026 - 18:14" class="datetime">24 Apr 2026</time> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-paragraphs"><div class="field-content"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>The Biotech Act I starts to gnaw away at past achievements to stop industry from hiding scientific data showing harm of their products (chemicals, GMOs, food additives etc.)</li> <li>It means a further roll back of the EU GMO laws - in particular for GM micro-organisms&nbsp;</li> </ul> <dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt><strong>What you need to know</strong></dt> <dd> <p>The <a href="https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-establish-measures-strengthen-unions-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-sectors_en">Biotech Act I proposal</a> was announced by EC-president Ursula von der Leyen in the <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/priorities-2024-2029_en">political priorities for 2024-2029</a> and was published on 16 December 2025. While its main focus is on health biotechnology, its impact is much broader. The Act proposes changes to six existing safety regulations. Notably it takes aim at some important improvements to the General Food Law (GFL) following the successful 2019 ‘Stop Glyphosate European Citizens Initiative’ (ECI).&nbsp;</p> <p>Then-Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis <a href="https://citizens-initiative-forum.europa.eu/citizens-experiences/blogs/how-stop-glyphosate-brought-about-small-revolution_en">introduced measures</a> to force companies to publish all scientific data contained in the studies for market approval. In addition, all regulatory studies submitted by industry had to be notified, blocking companies’ ability to abort and hide studies that show harmful effects by simply leaving them out of their application dossiers. With the proposed changes (see <a href="https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-regulation-establish-measures-strengthen-unions-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-sectors_en">here</a>, p.27) the punishment for failing to notify a study is reduced from a six to a three-month delay in authorization. A three-month delay is hardly a punishment for a company, if it grants the opportunity to leave out inconvenient studies.&nbsp;</p> <p>In addition, a company can ask EFSA for advice on study design, making the agency co-responsible, while previously this responsibility remained with the company. And while previously EFSA staff giving advice to applicants could not be involved in the actual risk assessment to avoid conflicts of interest, this has been taken out in the Biotech Act.<br><br><strong>Safety presumed, not proven</strong></p> <p>The Biotech Act is also the next step in a roll back of the existing EU GMO law, following the deregulation for NGT plants, a proposal that is currently in the <a href="https://friendsoftheearth.eu/press-release/eu-vote-on-new-gmos-wrong-for-farmers-wrong-for-consumers-wrong-for-nature/">final phase</a> of decision making following a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2021/03/derailing-eu-rules-new-gmos">strong industry lobby push</a>.&nbsp;<br><br>With this Act the Commission proposes to <a href="https://www.testbiotech.org/en/news/european-commission-plans-to-accelerate-the-release-of-genetically-engineered-microorganisms/">lower environmental safety standards</a> for the release of genetically engineered micro-organisms (GMMs) into the environment. The market approval would be time-unlimited (renewal assessments are scrapped). Detection and identification requirements can be lowered, which would make environmental monitoring more difficult. Safety requirements would be further lowered for a new category of “low-risk GMMs”. GMO veterinary products are even completely removed from EU GMO law.</p> <p><a name="_GoBack"></a> <a href="https://www.testbiotech.org/en/news/european-commission-plans-to-accelerate-the-release-of-genetically-engineered-microorganisms/">Testbiotech argues</a> that the use of new genetic engineering techniques (NGTs) and of AI combined have substantially expanded the ways in which microorganisms can be engineered, and “therefore the safety standards should be raised, not lowered”.&nbsp;</p> <p>No impact assessment has been published. There is mention of 25 stakeholder interviews, without any further information. A Biotech Act II is scheduled for later this year and is expected to include more deregulation measures for biotech products developed for other sectors like agriculture, pushed for by <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/croplife-europe_joint-industry-statement-on-the-eu-biotech-activity-7445378072830296065-UO5b/">the biotech lobby group Croplife Europe</a>.&nbsp;</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div></div></div> <div class="views-row"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><h2 class="field-content">The dreaded blueprint for social dumping</h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><time datetime="2026-03-24T11:36:00+01:00" title="Tuesday, March 24, 2026 - 11:36" class="datetime">24 Mar 2026</time> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-paragraphs"><div class="field-content"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Sector:</strong> general, company law</p> <p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>The Commission has presented its proposal for a '28th regime', that will introduce a European company form with its own rulebook.</li> <li>The EU Inc. proposal will enable companies to ignore labour rights.</li> </ul> <dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt><strong>What you need to know</strong></dt> <dd> <p>The Commission’s proposal on the 28^th regime has been released, and the initial signs are worrying.</p> <p>On Wednesday 18 March the Commission tabled a proposal that had been anticipated with both joy and dread since it was first announced in Ursula von der Leyen’s political guidelines for this term- “a so-called 28th regime to allow companies to benefit from a simpler, harmonised set of rules in certain areas,” <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683-f63ffb2cf648_en?filename=Political%20Guidelines%202024-2029_EN.pdf">the guidelines</a> read.&nbsp;</p> <p>Technically, it is about introducing a European company form, with easier and faster registration. However, this could provide an easy way of sidestepping rules at the national level, introduced to uphold workers rights. If the national approach be cumbersome, companies can simply choose a different rulebook – a European one, the 28^th regime.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Attack on labour rights</strong></p> <p>The jury is now out on the exact effect of the model picked by the Commission, but analysts in all quarters have taken an initial look at the text to figure out its nature. So far, trade union analysts are not in doubt: labour rights are under attack. &nbsp;</p> <p>Nevertheless, according to trade unions, there are good reasons to be worried already. Services workers federation UNI Europa regional secretary Oliver Roetig said in <a href="https://www.uni-europa.org/news/eu-inc-a-free-pass-for-regime-shopping/">a statement</a>, that with “companies allowed to cherry-pick countries with lower standards, it risks undermining our European social model, industrial relations and quality jobs. The proposal is unfortunately very clear: employee participation rights are linked to where the company is registered, and the company can register where they want.”</p> <p>General Secretary of the European Federation of Building and Wood Workers Tom Deleu <a href="https://www.efbww.eu/publications/press-releases/letterbox-inc-in-the-making-commission-proposal-ignores-fraud-re/4961-a">agrees</a>: “This is a bad proposal. In sectors like construction, EU Inc. will quickly turn into ‘Letterbox Inc’: it will fuel social dumping, weaken enforcement, and put workers at risk,” he said.&nbsp;</p> <p>The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) has <a href="https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/03/18/businesses-are-pleased-trade-unions-are-concerned-politicians-are-divided-reactions-to-the-eus-28th-regime/">highlighted</a> the absence of provisions that could have prevented companies from circumventing national labour laws, thereby endangering collective bargaining, wages, and rights to information and consultation in peril.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Triumphant business groups</strong></p> <p>For the business community, the Commission comes bearing gifts. There is already a hint in the name of the proposal, <a href="https://www.eu-inc.org/">EU Inc.</a>, taken straight from the lobby group set up by finance and industry companies to promote the idea. BusinessEurope, the main employers’ association, is satisfied, not least because what was first presented by the Commission President as a measure to support “innovative companies” ended up as something much broader. BusinessEurope’s Secretary General Markus Beyrer <a href="https://www.businesseurope.eu/publications/28th-regime-proposal-a-positive-development-for-competitiveness-across-the-single-market/">notes with satisfaction</a> that the proposed new rulebook is “open to all types of companies.”</p> <p><strong>Similar plans have been defeated</strong></p> <p>It is not the first time the trade union movement faces a challenge like this, and previous attempts have been defeated. That could happen again – through campaigns waged by labour or more cross-cutting efforts. It does not take opposition from so many governments to defeat it.&nbsp;</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div></div></div> <div class="views-row"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><h2 class="field-content">Next week’s summit: the dual threat of EU and national deregulation</h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><time datetime="2026-03-13T11:35:00+01:00" title="Friday, March 13, 2026 - 11:35" class="datetime">13 Mar 2026</time> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-paragraphs"><div class="field-content"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>A wide range of new deregulation initiatives will be revealed during next week’s EU summit</li> <li>Spanish MP Sánchez and Commissioner Ribera have spoken out against sweeping deregulation</li> <li>EU level deregulation combined with a strong clampdown on member state rule-making would mean ‘double deregulation’, bringing social and environmental progress to a halt</li> </ul> <dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt><strong>What you need to know</strong></dt> <dd> <p>The EU summit in Brussels on 19-20 March will be <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/view?reset=1&amp;id=1127&amp;cid=18&amp;cs=0108905b27967c05428d498dba312aa1_1773309304_168">a key event for the future of Europe</a>, in a context of unprecedented pressure to further accelerate the EU's deregulation agenda that was launched by Commission President von der Leyen in her second term. Much of the summit agenda is based on the outcomes of the scandalously industry-captured EU "retreat" in Alden-Biesen last month (see Deregulation Watch <strong>16 February 2026</strong>).The Commission will present its "One Europe, One Market" roadmap and action plan. The roadmap will include timelines for legislative measures to be adopted by the end of 2027. It will have a strong focus on “deepening the Single Market”, but details remain to be seen. On 18 March, the Commission will launch its proposal for an "EU Inc." company status. Trade unions warn that this could result in a <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/etuc-ces.bsky.social/post/3mgn5dz4zms2y">race to the bottom for workers' rights</a>.<br><br>Leaked draft Council conclusions show that member state governments want "all pending omnibus packages" agreed upon by the end of the year. They also ask the Commission to propose more omnibus packages, beyond the ten presented in 2025. The Council requests that the Commission undertake an "in-depth regulatory review" of the entire body of EU law, a plan that was already included in von der Leyen’s political guidelines in the summer of 2024, but now might get member states’ backing too. As part of this the Council also wants all future draft EU laws to be "simple by design," with more regulations than directives. This would also prevent so-called "gold-plating" of EU legislation — a term favoured by corporate lobby groups to describe when governments exceed the minimum standards in EU directives by adding higher environmental, health, consumer, or worker rights standards. This legitimate option is now considered taboo among deregulation-obsessed EU decision-makers—a major lobbying victory for BusinessEurope (which has been <a href="https://www.businesseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2013-00641-E-1ea-1.pdf">attacking ‘goldplating’</a> for more than a decade) and other corporate hardliners.<br><br>Similar to before the Alden-Biesen retreat in February, right-wing government leaders Friedrich Merz, Giorgia Meloni, and Bart De Wever <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/nvondarza.bsky.social/post/3mgoriz2bq22b">held a preparatory discussion</a> to advance their joint agenda of accelerating deregulatiaon Last month, Merz called for a "regulatory clean slate," insisting on "deregulating every sector" to boost competitiveness. Recently, Meloni led a new attack on EU climate policy, particularly the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which has also been <a href="https://euobserver.com/206244/row-over-eu-emissions-trading-as-industry-hits-back-at-chemical-lobby">under heavy fire from chemicals lobby giant CEFIC</a>. This week, <a href="https://caneurope.org/can-europe-letter-calls-on-member-states-to-support-an-ambitious-robust-and-socially-just-post-2030-climate-policy-architecture/">Climate Action Network Europe wrote to EU environment ministers</a>, warning that "the deregulation agenda promoted around the Antwerp Industry Summit and the February informal European Council risks repeating the mistakes of the past — delaying investment, deepening fossil dependence, and leaving Europe behind in the global race for clean industrial leadership."&nbsp;<br><br>Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has publicly <a href="https://pes.eu/economy/pes-backs-spains-plan-for-a-competitive-europe-that-protects-its-social-model-and-strengthens-its-open-strategic-autonomy/">distanced himself from the radical deregulation agenda</a> promoted by Meloni, Merz and De Wever. In a ten-point "non-paper" for the upcoming EU Summit, Sánchez offered an alternative vision to the document proposed by Merz and Meloni last month. According to Sánchez, a "truly successful competitiveness strategy" cannot sideline social cohesion or the Green Deal in the name of regulatory simplification. He wants to <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/spain-defends-eus-carbon-market-against-flurry-of-attacks-from-other-capitals/">keep decarbonisation at the core of EU competitiveness</a> and scale up public investment at the European level.<br><br>Last week, Commission Vice-President Teresa Ribera also distanced herself from Merz’s demands, warning that "deregulation could spell the end of the EU." In an <a href="https://www.contexte.com/eu/article/power/deregulation-could-spell-the-end-of-the-eu-ribera-warns_256799">interview with <em>Contexte</em></a>, Ribera said, "Tearing up EU rules in the name of boosting industry risks unravelling the bloc itself." She warned that "sweeping deregulation would effectively take Europe back to the early 1950s — an era before the founding Treaty of Rome and the common market — to a fragmented landscape of 'no common regulation' and '27 national realities.'"<br><br>If EU legislation is rolled back and the emergence of new EU rules to solve societal problems is made much harder, this will indeed force national governments to develop their own rules instead. However, if the Commission simultaneously moves ahead with"Single Market enforcement" initiatives to clamp down on member state laws that industry considers "regulatory barriers" (<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023/06/30-years-eu-single-market">many of which are legitimate rules</a> and policies in the public interest), we will face a disastrous scenario of double deregulation. The extent of this threat will become clearer when the Commission presents the "One Europe, One Market" action plan.</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div></div></div> <div class="views-row"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><h2 class="field-content">Chemicals Omnibus: battle in European Parliament</h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><time datetime="2026-03-12T11:35:00+01:00" title="Thursday, March 12, 2026 - 11:35" class="datetime">12 Mar 2026</time> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-paragraphs"><div class="field-content"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Sector:</strong> Chemicals</p> <p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>The deregulatory Chemicals Omnibus is being debated in the European Parliament now; progressive MEPs have tabled some positive amendments</li> <li>Following a civil society complaint about the Chemicals Omnibus, the European Ombudsman will consider our concerns in the context of her wider inquiries into recent EU decision-making, and inform the Commission of the complaint</li> </ul> <p><strong>What you need to know:</strong></p> <p>The deregulatory Chemicals Omnibus is being debated in the European Parliament now. This omnibus, number VI in the European Commission’s <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation/simplification-and-implementation/simplification_en">programme</a>, seeks to deregulate aspects of chemicals labelling, cosmetics, and fertilisers regulations.</p> <p>But MEPs from the Left, Greens, Socialists &amp; Democrats, and Renew Europe groups have tabled amendments on a variety of issues to substantially transform the draft.</p> <p>One set of <a href="https://product.enhesa.com/1856397/progressive-mepsseekreintroduction-ofclp-labelling-rules-in-eu-chemicals-omnibus">amendments</a> would reinstate chemicals hazard labelling requirements such as minimum font sizes and line spacing standards to make them more legible. These requirements were introduced by the Commission in the recent 2024&nbsp;<a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/revised-chemical-labelling-regulation-enters-force-2024-12-10_en">revision</a> of the regulation, but the Commission’s 2025 Chemicals Omnibus now proposes that they should be removed!</p> <p>Progressive MEPs have also <a href="https://product.enhesa.com/1866192/meps-remain-split-on-challenging-chemicals-omnibus">proposed</a>, via the Chemicals Omnibus, that endocrine disruptors and forever chemicals (PFAS) should be banned in cosmetic products to enhance protection of public health. Other amendments seek to reverse the Commission’s plans to (1) make it easier to use carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic substances in cosmetics, and to (2) keep them on the market for longer. A <a href="https://www.generations-futures.fr/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/briefing-en-omnibus-vi.pdf">briefing</a> by Générations Futures explains more.</p> <p>At the time of writing, negotiations are still underway, with progressive groups now tabling weaker, compromise amendments in an effort to secure agreement. But of course the right and extreme right wing parties in the European Parliament form an overall majority, and there is a real <a href="https://pro.politico.eu/news/tickets-please-the-chemicals-omnibus-is-back">worry</a> that the EPP [right wing party] will "choose to form an alliance with ECR [extreme right party] and the far right”. Per Clausen MEP, the Danish shadow rapporteur from the Left political group, has <a href="https://pro.politico.eu/news/the-chemicals-omnibus-sprint-to-finish-line">told</a> <em>Politico</em> that "the right wing’s fascination with keeping substances known to cause cancer on the market for years continues to boggle my mind."&nbsp;</p> <p>Meanwhile the European Ombudsman has decided to take action on a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/Ombudsman%20complaint%20on%20chemicals%20omnibus%2019.2.2026%20FINALx_0.pdf">complaint</a> about the way the Commission developed the Chemicals Omnibus. Tabled by Corporate Europe Observatory, Générations Futures, Health and Environment Alliance, European Environmental Bureau, and the Center for International Environmental Law, the complaint focused on the Commission’s failure to provide a robust evidence base, nor conduct a public consultation. Instead the EU’s executive relied on a failed ‘reality check’ process, including slido polls, which was dominated by industry.</p> <p>The Ombudsman has told us that she will <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/DECISION_202600469_20260309_153155.pdf">consider</a> our concerns in the context of her <a href="https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/220471">wider inquiries</a> into recent Commission decision-making (including into Omnibus I, see Deregulation Watch update 13 January 2026), and that she will inform the Commission of our complaint as “it suggests that the issues addressed in my recommendation are not limited to the legislative proposals in question in the three cases I inquired into.”</p> <p>Générations Futures and Health and Environment Alliance have <a href="https://shaketonpolitique.org/en/appeals/omnibus-6/">launched a tool</a> for citizens&nbsp;to support an improved Chemicals Omnibus, while the Greens in the European Parliament have also <a href="https://act.greens-efa.eu/cosmetics/">set up a petition</a> to demand no poisonous chemicals in cosmetics.&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> , <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-01/omnibus%20HZ.png?itok=2rVmZgbl" width="800" height="600" alt="Deregulation omnibus" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Cartoon by @cartoonRalph</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div></div></div> <div class="views-row"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><h2 class="field-content">Retreat at Belgian castle paves the way for harsh EU deregulation plan to be agreed at March Summit</h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><time datetime="2026-02-16T11:34:00+01:00" title="Monday, February 16, 2026 - 11:34" class="datetime">16 Feb 2026</time> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-paragraphs"><div class="field-content"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>In a nutshell:</strong></p> <ul> <li>Last week's European Industry Summit in Antwerp and the EU Summit in Alden Biesen were arguably the most corporate-captured events the EU has ever experienced.&nbsp;</li> <li>The EU retreat appears to have endorsed the "One Europe, One Market" plan and a fast-track schedule for the proposed "28th Regime" legislation.&nbsp;</li> <li>These events are further accelerating the EU deregulation wave, with an important EU Council Summit planned in mid March.</li> <li>Meanwhile, opposition from civil society groups and trade unions is reaching new heights.</li> </ul> <p><strong>What you need to know:&nbsp;</strong><br>Following Thursday’s EU leaders retreat at the Alden Biesen castle in Belgium, Commission President <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/STATEMENT_26_405">Ursula von der Leyen announced</a> that EU leaders had agreed to approve a “One Europe, One Market Roadmap and Action Plan” at the EU summit on March 18. This radical deregulation plan includes the following main ingredients:&nbsp;</p> <ul> <li>speeding up the approval of the ten omnibus packages proposed last year and adding more this year as part of what she described as "a deep house cleaning of the acquis" (the term "acquis" refers to the complete collection of EU laws);&nbsp;</li> <li>"cracking down on gold-plating," a longstanding corporate lobbying demand to restrict governments' ability to exceed the minimum standards agreed upon in EU directives&nbsp;</li> <li>"sunset clauses for laws," meaning adding expiration dates to laws so they are discontinued unless renewed or reauthorized.&nbsp;</li> </ul> <p>Von der Leyen also announced that the Commission will launch its legislative proposal for the 28th regime before the March EU summit, meaning sometime within the next four weeks. The law is to be dubbed "EU Inc.," the name of an <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/eu-inc/posts/?feedView=all">industry lobbying coalition</a> with <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/09/social-dumping-disaster-eus-28th-regime">close links to Big Tech</a>, that has promoted the proposal for the past few years. Trade unions are deeply concerned that the forthcoming 28th regime will <a href="https://www.etui.org/publications/how-28th-company-law-regime-jeopardises-workers-rights">undermine workers' rights</a>. Earlier this month, Esther Lynch, head of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), warned that <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/news/rage-against-the-28th-regime/?utm_source=euractiv&amp;utm_medium=newsletter&amp;utm_content=The+Roundup&amp;utm_term=0-0&amp;utm_campaign=THE_BRIEF">the 28th Regime could create "the biggest loophole in history"</a> if it fails to specify where businesses are legally based. “How would the labour inspector know where the employer even was?” she asked.&nbsp;</p> <p>The measures announced by von der Leyen reflect many of the key demands presented last month by Prime Ministers Merz and Meloni ("Merzoni", see also Deregulation Watch post 29 January 2026) as well as the overlapping wish lists of big business lobby groups. This is deeply worrying, considering their political agenda. In his article, "The Merzoni Plan Would Take Europe Backwards, Not Forward," Dave Keating describes Merz and Meloni as the <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-new-power-couple-alliance-europe-giorgia-meloni-friedrich-merz/">"new right-wing Atlanticist power couple"</a> and <a href="https://impakter.com/merz-meloni-non-paper-eu-constitutional-coup/">quotes Claude Forthomme</a> who describes their joint initiative in the run-up to the Alden Biesen summit as "a constitutional coup, extending right-wing, pro-business power over the EU Commission and the European Parliament."&nbsp;<br><br>The Alden Biesen summit was preceded by a <a href="https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/02/11/european-leaders-meet-industry-heavyweights-in-power-shift-for-business">European Industry Summit in Antwerp</a> the day before. During this summit, <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/news/antwerp-industry-meeting-shows-who-really-rules-europe/">von der Leyen, Merz, De Wever, and other EU leaders</a> met with industry leaders and lobbyists. <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7428519009702178816/">László Andor</a>, the former EU Commissioner who is now the Secretary General of FEPS, described the two connected events as "a show of power to demand the rapid implementation of the center-right–far-right economic agenda without ifs or buts." The summit was indeed an intensely corporate-captured event. In the weeks before, von der Leyen’s cabinet held a series of preparatory meetings with corporate lobbying giants ERT and BusinessEurope on the two summits, including a<a href="https://bsky.app/profile/vonderleyen.ec.europa.eu/post/3me5bg32ctk2h"> dinner meeting with more than a dozen BusinessEurope lobbyists</a> in the first week of February. As the Spanish campaigner Tom Kucharz points out, this is the culmination of <a href="https://www.elsaltodiario.com/la-motosierra-ue/cumbre-ue-castillo-alden-biesen">a corporate lobbying campaign that began in 2022</a>.&nbsp;<br><br>Last week, proponents of deregulation staged an unprecedented PR show, but civil society groups and trade unions demonstrated their determination to resist this agenda with an unprecedented number of initiatives. Extinction Rebellion <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/feb/09/eu-urged-not-roll-back-green-agenda-revive-faltering-economy">occupied the offices of the chemical industry lobbying giant CEFIC</a> to protest their Antwerp Summit. A coalition of NGOs and unions <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/trade-union-and-ngo-coalition-calls-out-corporate-shadow-roadmap-dictating-eu-agenda">denounced von der Leyen’s agenda</a> of prioritizing a “shadow roadmap” of industry-led deregulation over democratic and environmental safeguards. The <a href="https://grandparentsforclimate.eu/belgian-grandparents-talk-to-politicians-about-climate-alarm/">Flemish Grandparents for Climate</a> demonstrated in Alden-Biesen the weekend before the summit and Irish comedian Michael Fry attacked von der Leyen’s deregulation wave in <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/bigdirtyfry.bsky.social/post/3mejae6idmc2u">a satirical video</a>. The Climate Action Network wrote to EU leaders to counter industry calls to roll back EU climate laws. In an opinion piece, <a href="https://euobserver.com/202737/corporate-lobbyists-push-for-deregulation-while-workers-pay-the-price/">ETUC's Esther Lynch denounced deregulation</a>, pointing out that "Europe's competitiveness challenge cannot be solved by stripping away rights and protections" and that “it can only be solved by building a mission-led economy — one that sets clear priorities, mobilises the significant investment needed, contributes to creating quality jobs”.</p> </div> </div> </div></div></div> <div class="views-row"><div class="views-field views-field-title"><h2 class="field-content">Red Alert: mid-February EU summit aims to accelerate EU deregulation</h2></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><time datetime="2026-01-29T11:33:00+01:00" title="Thursday, January 29, 2026 - 11:33" class="datetime">29 Jan 2026</time> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-field-paragraphs"><div class="field-content"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>In a nutshell:&nbsp;</strong></p> <p>• An EU "Leaders' Retreat" on 12 February will discuss radical proposals to accelerate the deregulation of EU- and national-level legislation.</p> <p>• This reflects the growing support among EU governments for the deregulation agenda first launched by Commission President von der Leyen in late 2024.</p> <p><strong>What you need to know:</strong></p> <p>On 12 February EU leaders will meet at Alden Biesen castle in rural Belgium for an informal summit dedicated to "competitiveness." The "Leaders' Retreat" will address deregulation demands proposed by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz earlier this month. The summit is hosted by Belgian Prime Minister De Wever, who shares the views of Merz and Meloni that the European economy is suffering from “overregulation”.</p> <p>During their <a href="https://www.eunews.it/en/2026/01/23/meloni-merz-europes-new-best-mates-want-to-abolish-eu-bureaucracy/">bilateral summit in Rome</a> last week, Merz stated that he and Meloni "want to dismantle bureaucracy to be more competitive" and called for "legislative and regulatory self-restraint." By "bureaucracy," Merz and Meloni mean rules developed to protect people and the environment. Meloni said that the EU’s ecological transition has "brought our industries to their knees." In a <a href="https://brusselssignal.eu/2026/01/merz-says-eu-crippled-itself-with-over-regulation-proposes-emergency-brake/">speech at the World Economic Forum</a> in Davos, Merz said that the EU has "crippled itself with over-regulation." In a <a href="https://cdn.table.media/assets/europe/ger-ita-non-paper-competitiveness_en_finale.pdf">three-page document submitted for the EU summit</a>, Merz and Meloni called for "deeper integration of the Single Market," arguing that "we need to ease the regulatory burden on our businesses." The document claims that "our internal barriers add up to internal tariffs of 44 percent for trade in goods and more than 110 percent for trade in services." However, these figures are highly misleading, based on an IMF study with a <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-7420494211533225986-pkAv/?utm_source=social_share_send&amp;utm_medium=android_app&amp;rcm=ACoAAADZhu0BUdaplanauEZ3l56nN8Nyneh1hAI&amp;utm_campaign=gmail">deeply flawed methodology</a>. The crusade to remove "internal barriers" in the Single Market <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/30%20Years%20of%20EU%20Single%20Market-Report-Final.pdf">threatens legitimate national-level environmental and social standards</a> and will likely hinder the advancement of progressive national-level regulations.</p> <p>Merz and Meloni also demand an Omnibus to speed up permitting, an "emergency brake" to allow governments to intervene if new EU legislation is considered too "burdensome," and the finalization of <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/09/social-dumping-disaster-eus-28th-regime">the controversial "28th Regime"</a> by the end of the year. They also demand "systematic monitoring and assessment of amendments proposed by the co-legislators in the legislative process to assess whether the proposed changes are associated with additional burdens" (ie. business-friendly impact assessments of amendments voted for by the European Parliament).&nbsp;</p> <p>Virtually all of these priorities are longstanding demands of industry lobbyists, promoted by BusinessEurope, the European Round Table for Industry (ERT), and others. Meanwhile, this lobbying continues at full speed. Last week, the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium (FEB), which is part of BusinessEurope, met with the cabinet of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to discuss preparations for the informal EU summit scheduled for 12 February in Alden Biesen. Pieter Timmermans of FEB <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vbofeb_pieter-timmermans-met-with-the-cabinet-activity-7420099723442946050-Mkc3?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop&amp;rcm=ACoAAADZhu0BUdaplanauEZ3l56nN8Nyneh1hAI">posted on LinkedIn</a> that the lobby group "presented its key priorities, including strengthening the internal market [...] and cutting administrative burdens — particularly those associated with the Pay Transparency Directive." This last point refers to BusinessEurope's lobbying campaign for a so-called "social omnibus" that would weaken workers' rights (see Deregulation Watch update 11 December 2025) . The ERT also had a meeting last week with von der Leyen’s cabinet to discuss the "single market." Unfortunately, <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/exportmeetings.do?doc=2e8c7181-c204-4f2d-9607-722ac7e2a7fe&amp;host=no">the minutes posted online</a> are ultra brief and virtually useless (11 words: "Exchange of views on the barriers to strengthening the Single Market)". This undermines transparency and prevents public scrutiny of interactions between the Commission’s leadership and powerful industry lobby groups. Meanwhile late last week BusinessEurope published its “<a href="https://www.businesseurope.eu/publications/the-businesseurope-omnibook-to-reduce-regulatory-burdens/">Omnibook</a>” of almost 140 deregulation demands. Intensive corporate lobbying continues.&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div></div></div> </div> <nav class="pager" role="navigation" aria-labelledby="pagination-heading"> <h4 id="pagination-heading" class="visually-hidden">Pagination</h4> <ul class="pager__items js-pager__items"> <li class="pager__item is-active"> <a href="?page=0" title="Current page" aria-current="page"> <span class="visually-hidden"> Current page </span>1</a> </li> <li class="pager__item"> <a href="?page=1" title="Go to page 2"> <span class="visually-hidden"> Page </span>2</a> </li> <li class="pager__item"> <a href="?page=2" title="Go to page 3"> <span class="visually-hidden"> Page </span>3</a> </li> <li class="pager__item"> <a href="?page=3" title="Go to page 4"> <span class="visually-hidden"> Page </span>4</a> </li> <li class="pager__item"> <a href="?page=4" title="Go to page 5"> <span class="visually-hidden"> Page </span>5</a> </li> <li class="pager__item pager__item--ellipsis" role="presentation">…</li> <li class="pager__item pager__item--next"> <a href="?page=1" title="Go to next page" rel="next"> <span class="visually-hidden">Next page</span> <span aria-hidden="true">→</span> </a> </li> <li class="pager__item pager__item--last"> <a href="?page=6" title="Go to last page"> <span class="visually-hidden">Last page</span> <span aria-hidden="true">Last »</span> </a> </li> </ul> </nav> </div> </div> </div></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--wide-image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-default ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <picture> <source srcset="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/banner_xl/public/2025-01/CEO_DEREG%20WEB%20BANNER.jpg?itok=62FDhRax 1x" media="all and (min-width: 1125px)" type="image/jpeg" width="1500" height="590"> <source srcset="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/banner_l/public/2025-01/CEO_DEREG%20WEB%20BANNER.jpg?itok=uJWw7oqj 1x" media="all and (min-width: 720px) and (max-width: 1124px)" type="image/jpeg" width="1200" height="470"> <source srcset="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/banner_m/public/2025-01/CEO_DEREG%20WEB%20BANNER.jpg?itok=nMVihTlF 1x" media="all and (min-width: 481px) and (max-width: 720px)" type="image/jpeg" width="800" height="315"> <source srcset="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/banner_s/public/2025-01/CEO_DEREG%20WEB%20BANNER.jpg?itok=loJXM92A 1x" media="all and (max-width: 480px)" type="image/jpeg" width="400" height="160"> <img loading="eager" width="400" height="160" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/banner_s/public/2025-01/CEO_DEREG%20WEB%20BANNER.jpg?itok=loJXM92A" alt="Banner with the title &quot;Deregulation watch&quot; with photos of Ursula Von Der Leyen, Elon Musk an dMario Draghi and the words: competitiveness, simplification, overregulation, red tape and regularoty burdens"> </picture> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">18.02.2020</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/better-regulation-corporate-friendly-deregulation-disguise" hreflang="en">'Better Regulation': corporate-friendly deregulation in disguise</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Mon, 08 Jun 2026 12:55:00 +0000 Joana 2194 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/06/new-free-screenings-our-documentary <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Join us in Barcelona, Valencia and Madrid on June 8th, 9th and 10th. </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">04.06.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Join us for a free screening of our documentary “The scramble for hydrogen in South Africa”, a film about how frontline communities are impacted by the EU’s green extractivism.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The documentary lasts for 30min and each session will be followed by a conversation with the CEO team and activists on the ground fighting green hydrogen and other false solutions. More info on the sessions:</p> <p><strong>Monday June 8th 7h30pm | Barcelona</strong><br>Venue: AKASHA Hub, c. de la Verneda 19, Nau 1. Sant Martí<br>Co-hosts: ODG, Ecologistas en Acción, Enginyeria Sense Fronteres, and DEPANA<br>Free registration <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/apps/forms/s/wREHTDjsq6ewdDaFX9j6SocC">here</a>.</p> <p><strong>Tuesday June 9th 7pm | Valencia&nbsp;</strong><br>Venue: C/ de Francesc Martínez, 17, Benimaclet<br>Co-hosts: Ecologistes en Acció València, Acció Ecologista Muntanyera, Joventut Comunista, Rebelión o extinción/Rebelión científica and Partit Comunista del País Valencià.</p> <p><strong>Wednesday June 10th 7pm | Madrid</strong><br>Venue: El Ateneo La Maliciosa, Calle Peñuelas, 12<br>Co-hosts: Ecologistas en Acción Madrid&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zI0q9vru_QE?si=aDHDtpEu_kfL1qtV" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oLim7c6iCqs?si=FpaM5PwMBjb-mClj" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">05.12.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/ScrambleForHydrogen" hreflang="en">The scramble for hydrogen in South Africa</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">10.12.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/12/behind-scenes-scramble-hydrogen-south-africa" hreflang="en">Behind the scenes: The scramble for hydrogen in South Africa</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.10.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/scramble-hydrogen-south-africa-boegoebaai" hreflang="en">The Scramble for Hydrogen in South Africa - Boegoebaai</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.10.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/scramble-hydrogen-south-africa-vaal-triangle" hreflang="en">The Scramble for Hydrogen in South Africa - The Vaal Triangle</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Thu, 04 Jun 2026 13:27:00 +0000 Joana 2402 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/06/degenerative-lobby <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> ‘Regenerative Agriculture’: the new buzzword for Agrobusiness </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">01.06.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Pesticide corporations like Bayer and Syngenta are among a very broad range of actors from the global agribusiness and food sector who are behind the push for what they call “regenerative agriculture” in Europe and elsewhere.&nbsp;</p> <p>Lobby documents obtained by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) show that since September 2024 corporations in the pesticide, dairy, and big food industries have lobbied the European Commission, carefully deploying the concept of regenerative agriculture to <a href="https://changingmarkets.org/report/the-new-merchants-of-doubt-how-big-meat-and-dairy-avoid-climate-action/">promote</a> a range of practices that are actually associated with environmental harm, including the <a href="https://changingmarkets.org/report/the-new-merchants-of-doubt-how-big-meat-and-dairy-avoid-climate-action/">continued</a> use of synthetic agrochemicals.&nbsp;</p> <p>Download article<strong> </strong><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/Regenerative%20agriculture%20-%20FINAL.pdf"><strong>Here</strong></a>.&nbsp;</p> <p>A Joint Statement by Civil Society <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/Joint%20Statement_Regenerative%20Greenwashing.pdf"><strong>Here</strong>.</a></p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The concept of regenerative agriculture <a href="https://ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/SmokeAndMirrors.pdf">originated</a> with the US organic movement (See Box 1). But recently it has proven popular with large corporations, who are pushing for the EU to adopt an “outcome-based” definition of regenerative agriculture - one that does not rule out harmful practices like the use of pesticides and chemical fertilisers.<br><br>Our findings come as the term is <a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ENVI-AM-785430_EN.pdf">being</a> inserted more regularly into EU decision-making spaces. This includes policy discussions on how billions of taxpayer money should be used to support the farming system in the coming years, and others on creating an overarching framework to measure sustainable farming through an exercise called “EU benchmarking”.<br><br>Campaigners are concerned that policymakers’ growing interest in regenerative agriculture could see this hazy term becoming more integrated into EU policy, thus embedding harmful industrial practices.<strong> </strong>While the push has been led by corporations, campaigners are also concerned about the involvement of prominent non-profits, certification schemes and farmers groups who are collaborating with companies in their engagement. Despite in some cases having a different understanding of what regenerative agriculture means, the involvement of these non-profit actors may be lending credibility to corporate schemes.</p> <p>The urgency for a dramatic paradigm shift in food production has been documented over and over again during the past decades. In September 2024 the European commission itself admitted this in it’s Vision for Agriculture Report, adopted with a strong consensus from environmental and agrobusiness associations , backed by science, but which since <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/no-vision-left">has been slowly eroded, to preserve the destructive status quo</a>.</p> <p>In March 2026, the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC) <a href="https://climate-advisory-board.europa.eu/reports-and-publications/climate-adaptation-and-mitigation-in-the-agri-food-system-recommendations-for-coherent-eu-policies">joined</a> a raft of other international and UN-backed scientific bodies to call for transformative change to food systems, to protect the environment.&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><blockquote><p><strong>A short history of regenerative AG&nbsp;</strong></p> </blockquote> <p><a name="docs-internal-guid-e2a1ebc5-7fff-e252-4d"></a> The term ‘regenerative agriculture’ was first coined by Robert Rodale - son of J.I. Rodale, who was one of the US pioneers of organic farming almost one century ago. J.I. Rodale established the Rodale Institute in 1947, dedicated to promote research into organic farming. Later his son Robert took over and according to him regenerative ag is “a holistic approach to farming that encourages continuous innovation and improvement of environmental, social, and economic measures. Regenerative organic agriculture not only maintains resources but improves them. With only about<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-food-soil-farming-idUSKCN0JJ1R920141205"> 60 years</a> of topsoil remaining at current practices, nothing less will do.”&nbsp;</p> <p><em><a name="docs-internal-guid-7a2fa2c4-7fff-e91d-65"></a> According to Robert Rodale Regenerative ag is “a holistic approach to farming that encourages continuous innovation and improvement of environmental, social, and economic measures. Regenerative organic agriculture not only maintains resources but improves them. With only about</em><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-food-soil-farming-idUSKCN0JJ1R920141205"><em> 60 years</em></a><em> of topsoil remaining at current practices, nothing less will do.”&nbsp;</em></p> <p><em>According to Rodale “soil health is intrinsically linked to the total health of our food system” as it affects “everything from plant health to human wellbeing and the future of our planet.” And regenerative AG “prioritizes soil health while simultaneously encompassing high standards for animal welfare and worker fairness. The idea is to create farm systems that work in harmony with nature to improve quality of life for every creature involved.”</em></p> <p><em>To demonstrate this for example the Rodale Institute started with a long-term, research trial model to compare organic and conventional agriculture, or </em><a href="https://rodaleinstitute.org/science/"><em>in their own words</em></a><em> ‘putting science behind the best practices in organic agriculture’.&nbsp;&nbsp;</em></p> <p><em>Rodales ‘Farming Systems Trial’, has been running since 1981 and compares organic and conventional corn, soybeans, and other grains. By doing so the institute also researches ‘the effects of growing food without chemical</em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide"><em> pesticides</em></a><em>,</em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbicide"><em> herbicides</em></a><em> and</em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer"><em> fertilizers</em></a><em> on human health, water quality, climate change, and more’. The Rodale’s Institute self declared mission is “to conduct rigorous research designed to help uncover the most effective, efficient, and regenerative farming practices. Shared with farmers and consumers worldwide, our research acts as a catalyst for change in food systems around the globe.”</em></p> <p><em>It is this kind of research which showed that organic agriculture can have similar yields as conventional farming, but thanks to lower input costs (pesticides, fertilisers) can lead to higher profits for the farmer.</em></p> <p>The Rodale institute used the term regenerative AG they themselves launched, only sporadically since the late 1980s, but then released their <a href="https://rodaleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/rodale-white-paper.pdf">white paper in 2014</a>, titled "Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change". The summary states, "we could sequester more than 100% of current annual<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere"> CO2 emissions</a> with a switch to common and inexpensive organic management practices, which we term 'regenerative organic agriculture.'" The paper described agricultural practices, like<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_rotation"> crop rotation</a>,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost"> compost</a> application, and reduced tillage, that are similar to<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming"> organic agriculture</a> methods.”&nbsp;</p> <p>Although there is still no official international definition, and while several regional differing approaches to regenerative agriculture can exist, there are 4 common principles:</p> <ul> <li>minimal tilling of the soil</li> <li>using cover crops</li> <li>planting polycultural crops</li> <li>using organic fertilizers and organic methods of pest control</li> </ul> <p>It shows why it is highly questionable that global corporations like Yara (fertilizers) and Bayer (pesticides) enthusiastically embrace an agricultural approach like regenerative AG, which basically renounces their top selling products which are depleting soil health.</p> <p>Despite the existence of an organic community with governing stakeholders (farmers, consumers, conservationists, retailers, processors, inspectors, and scientists) that has evolved over at least seven decades and is codified in the <em>Organic Foods Production Act</em> (OFPA) of 1990, the term “regenerative” is now increasingly being advanced as a loosely defined alternative to the organic standard and label, which is transparent, defined, certified, enforced, and subject to public input.</p> <p>In 2017, the Rodale Institute introduced a “holistic, high-bar standard for agriculture certification. Regenerative Organic Certified”, which is being overseen by the <a href="https://regenorganic.org/">Regenerative Organic Alliance</a>, “a non-profit made up of experts in farming, ranching, soil health, animal welfare, and farmer and worker fairness.”</p> <p>Under the motto ‘sustainability in food systems’ there is clearly a global battle ongoing for who has the right to claim the term, in order for&nbsp; larger agribusinesses and food giants to use the label ‘regenerative’. Last year <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewwatman/2025/10/16/regenerative-organic-alliance-launches-new-initiative-to-reduce-greenwashing-and-scale-regenerative-agriculture/">Forbes published a story </a>about this development with the Rodale Institute fighting back: ‘Regenerative Organic Alliance Launches New Initiative To Reduce Greenwashing And Scale Regenerative Agriculture’.&nbsp; According to the article this ‘new program is born out of the tension between high standards and encouraging more farms to implement regenerative practices.&nbsp;</p> <p>Christopher Gergen, CEO of the Regenerative Organic Alliance called it “a major step forward for the global regenerative organic movement. The challenge with regenerative claims is that so many of them lack any clearly-defined standard and are not third-party verified. Journey to ROC is a clear, high-integrity pathway to ROC through the path of soil health, with a credible third-party-verified standard like RegenAgri.”</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Who is lobbying in Brussels?</strong></p> <p>The concept of regenerative Agriculture has recently garnered significant attention from companies who are under pressure to take responsibility for their environmental impacts. More than 100 corporations now <a href="https://archive.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/research/2023-food-and-agriculture-benchmark-insights-report/">refer</a> to regenerative agriculture in their sustainability strategies, while it is also being promoted in <a href="https://blog.g20interfaith.org/2026/03/28/regenerative-agriculture-part-1/">international fora</a> such as the Climate COPs.&nbsp;<br><br>Worryingly, there <a href="https://ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/SmokeAndMirrors.pdf">is no</a> widely agreed definition for regenerative agriculture, which experts have warned leaves the term <a href="https://ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/SmokeAndMirrors.pdf">open </a>to co-option by companies looking to present a more sustainable image. Successive assessments have <a href="https://www.fairr.org/resources/reports/regenerative-agriculture-four-labours">found</a> that, despite increasing use of the term, companies making claims about the benefits of regenerative agriculture often do so without providing any clear definitions or targets. Others have expressed <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/regenerative-agriculture-good-soil-health-limited-potential-mitigate-climate-change">concern</a> that there is no evidence that some techniques being used under the regenerative agriculture <a href="https://foe.org/news/no-tills-massive-pesticide-problem/">banner</a> are bringing about the benefits companies claim.&nbsp;</p> <p>For example, assessments by the World Resources Institute and Friends of the Earth have <a href="https://www.wri.org/insights/regenerative-agriculture-good-soil-health-limited-potential-mitigate-climate-change">questioned</a> whether the no-till techniques promoted by pesticide and grain companies actually have climate <a href="https://foe.org/news/no-tills-massive-pesticide-problem/">benefits</a>. A major academic study also <a href="https://www.desmog.com/2024/02/01/climate-change-livestock-methane-carbon-sequestration-claims/">contradicted</a> claims, made by many meat and dairy companies, that by grazing cattle “regeneratively”, cattle farmers can significantly <a href="https://www.desmog.com/2024/02/01/climate-change-livestock-methane-carbon-sequestration-claims/">lower</a> their emissions footprint.</p> <p>Corporate Europe Observatory’s investigation shows that a wide range of companies, industry groups, farmers’ organisations and some non-profits have promoted regenerative agriculture to EU decision-makers since at least September 2024.&nbsp;<br><br>Companies that engaged directly include German pesticides multinational Bayer, which <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/Bayer%20Werner%20meeting_minute_88fd85cb-40ec-49cb-afad-5166bd5c6c58-1.pdf">held a meeting in September 2025</a> to discuss the topic with the Director-General for DG AGRI, Elisabeth Werner. Bayer expressed its strong support for regenerative agriculture as concept ‘to reconcile sustainable and productive food systems’. In the speaking notes it is stated <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/25.2%202025%2009%2012%20A2793%20Werner%20Bayer%20prep.pdf">the European Commission agrees</a>.&nbsp;</p> <p>Multinational grain company Cargill, meanwhile, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/12.1%20The%20EU%E2%80%99s%20agriculture%20and%20food%20agenda%20%E2%80%93%20request%20for%20a%20meeting%20in%20Davos%2C%20January_Redacted.pdf">invited</a> the Agri Commissioner to an event it hosted at the Swiss resort of Davos to discuss regenerative agriculture. It is also <a href="https://edepot.wur.nl/680029">funding</a> research, including from Wageningen University, to promote the benefits of its regenerative agriculture schemes across Europe.</p> <p>Another company pushing the concept to decision-makers is global processed food and consumer goods company Unilever. The corporation invited EU officials to a pilot farm in Spain, where it is trialing <a href="https://www.unilever.com/news/news-search/2025/protecting-nature-at-scale-unilevers-progress-on-implementing-regenerative-agriculture/">regenerative techniques</a> like crop rotation, and planting flower strips alongside fields. Dutch bank Rabobank - long time lender to agrobusinesses - is among the financial institutions <a href="https://www.rabobank.com/about-us/carbon-bank/011264819/rabo-carbon-bank-sells-first-carbon-credits-to-dutch-companies">supporting</a> carbon-farming and soil-carbon credit markets, including projects linked to practices such as reduced tillage and no-till. Nicoline van Gerrevink, Head of Food System Transition at Rabobank <a href="https://www.wbcsd.org/resources/regenerative-agriculture-as-a-response-to-financial-risk-and-driver-of-supply-chain-value/">said</a>: “For us as an agricultural bank, regenerative agriculture is one of the mechanisms through which we seek to support delivery against those commitments (Paris Climate Agreement and the Kunming‑Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, red.) together with other stakeholders.”</p> <p><a href="https://www.nestle.com/sites/default/files/2022-07/nestle-agriculture-framework.pdf">Food giant Nestlé</a>, speaking at this year’s Davos World Economic Forum, announced <a href="https://fruittoday.com/en/nestle-expands-global-alliances-to-accelerate-regenerative-farming/">its ambition</a> to “accelerate the transition to regenerative agriculture and encourage young people to enter and lead the future of farming”, in global cooperation with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Goodwall. “Regenerative agriculture is essential to the long-term resilience of our business and the global food system,” said Stephanie Hart, Chief Operations Officer for the multinational company.</p> <p><strong>Intermediary industry groups</strong><br><br>As well as lobbying directly, companies also worked to promote regenerative agriculture through a range of intermediary industry groups. One notable example is the Forum for the Future of Agriculture (FFA), an umbrella group which was co-founded in 2008 by pesticide corporation Syngenta and the landowner representative group European Landowners Organisation (ELO). FFA contacted the Commission in January 2025, <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/11.4%20Letter-Vision%20for%20Agriculture-Commissioner%20Ch.Hansen-signed.pdf">calling</a> for the scaling up of regenerative agriculture ahead of the publication of the EU’s Vision for Agriculture.&nbsp;<br><br>In April, it <a href="https://forumforag.com/video/?category=2025-annual-conference">held</a> a three-day conference in Brussels, promoting the concept to hundreds of attendees. Like with Bayer, regenerative agriculture has become a significant <a href="https://www.syngenta.com/agriculture/sustainable-agriculture/regenerative-agriculture">talking point</a> for Syngenta in recent years, with the company associating it with practices like no-till and precision-farming - practices that <a href="https://foe.org/news/no-tills-massive-pesticide-problem/">continue</a> pesticide use.<br><br>Another key platform is One Planet Business for Biodiversity (OP2B), whose members include Nestlé, Unilever, and tech giants Microsoft and Google. The documents show OP2B <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/17.1%20Summary%20Report%20BASIS%20CAB%20HANSEN%2098.pdf">sent</a> a delegation of CEOs to meet Commissioner Hansen in April 2025, having already held a joint-session on the topic of regenerative agriculture with DG AGRI in February.&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-06/Regen%202%20kIII-JtbQRWoWRkYz8qn7A-1024x683.webp?itok=1UPKwTcl" width="800" height="534" alt="farmer regenerative AG " class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>What are they calling for?</strong><br><br>The documents show a diverse set of actors converging around a common set of policy demands which, if adopted, could shape how the EU defines and funds sustainable farming for years to come.</p> <p>A central focus of the corporate lobby campaign is the promotion of an “outcome-based” definition of regenerative agriculture. Supporters like the FFA and OP2B <a href="https://www.wbcsd.org/resources/op2b-position-paper-on-the-vision-for-the-future-of-agriculture-in-the-eu/">argue</a> that this approach would allow flexibility for farmers, while ensuring accountability for environmental results. But critics warn that such definitions risk leaving the door open to harmful practices. Rather than setting clear limits - for example on pesticide or fertiliser use - many corporate-backed frameworks emphasise improvements in efficiency or risk reduction.</p> <p>One <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/17.3%20OP2B%20EU%20POSITION%20PAPER.pdf">framework</a> promoted by OP2B to the European Commission, for example, focuses on reducing pesticide <em>risk</em> rather than overall use, and improving fertiliser efficiency rather than requiring absolute cuts. The framework also emphasises carbon removal over the deep emissions cuts scientists say are necessary to reduce the agricultural sector’s climate footprint. Campaigners argue that this could allow existing industrial practices to continue largely unchanged, while still qualifying as “regenerative”, while blithely ignoring scientific warnings of the need to phase such practices out.<br><br>These proposals are being <a href="https://www.carlsberggroup.com/media/fnidfbah/bcg-carlsberg-op2b_2025_sowing-change-eu-policy-opportunities-to-scale-regen-ag_pages.pdf">advanced</a> by industry groups in the context of ongoing EU efforts to <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/topics/agriculture-and-rural-development/future-agriculture_en">develop a benchmark</a> by which sustainable farming is measured. OP2B has suggested its framework could feed into EU efforts to develop its own framework. This important EU benchmark would in effect act as a standard for sustainable farming, against which other certification schemes are measured, and funding and policy decisions are made.</p> <p><strong>Global agrobusiness and food companies unite</strong></p> <p>By the end of 2023 the <a href="https://saiplatform.org/">Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) platform</a>, by now a large group of 190 global agrobusiness and food companies that includes giants like Bayer, Cargill, ADM, Syngenta, Danone, PepsiCo, McDonalds, Nestlé and Unilever, <a href="https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2023/09/27/sai-releases-definition-of-and-framework-for-regenerative-agriculture/">released its own corporate regenerative agriculture definition</a>, as well as a framework for benchmarking, assessments, and ‘normative claims’. These were released under the slogan ‘<a href="https://saiplatform.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/sai-platform_-regenerating-together_september-2023-1.pdf"><em>Regenerating Together A Global Framework for Regenerative Agriculture</em></a>’.&nbsp;</p> <p>Over thirty founding members of the SAI Platform – all global food corporations, commodity traders or fertilizer and pesticide producers - defined the principles for ‘Regenerating Together’ a self-declared ‘global framework for regenerative agriculture’. SAI aimed to establish&nbsp;</p> <p>‘impact areas that are universally relevant for beef, crops and dairy production systems’ and meaningfully announced to be ‘focusing on outcomes rather than practices to acknowledge the context-specificity of regenerative agriculture and prioritising the selection and monitoring of outcomes based on the greatest environmental and production risks at farm level’.&nbsp;</p> <p>The SAI Platform defines regenerative agriculture as “an outcome-based farming approach that protects and improves soil health, biodiversity, climate, and water resources while supporting farming business development.” No single word about pesticide or fertilizer use, two input factors known to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2013.13214">be devastating for biodiversity</a>, putting in peril "the integrity of living systems" that humans also depend upon, according to the <a href="https://www.stockholmresilience.org/">Stockholm Resilience Center.</a></p> <p>And of course SAI will deliver all this by ‘ensuring that outcome metrics are science-based, meaningful and measurable’. One simple question should be: how much reduction of pesticide and fertilizer use will be obtained by 2030, as a reference to the <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:ea0f9f73-9ab2-11ea-9d2d-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&amp;format=PDF">EU proposed Farm2Fork Strategy</a>, which had clear ambitions (until the <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2023/11/two-year-lobbying-campaign-sabotage-pesticide-reduction">F2F Strategy got deleted by the same agro-business lobby</a> and their political allies by 2024.</p> <p>A 2023 <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023/11/sabotaging-eu-pesticide-reduction-law-sur">Corporate Europe Observatory report</a> exposed that the industry lobby not only undermined the pesticide reduction targets proposed via F2F legislation, but also downplayed the potential of biological ways to deal with pests; sponsored opaque media content to promote their messages;</p> <p>and pushed their own technological solutions even when unproven, such as deregulating gene-edited crops. The latter will be patented by corporations, increasing dependency for farmers.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-06/SAI%20members.jpg?itok=iHHtAcGE" width="800" height="450" alt="corporate members SAI" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The SAI ‘Regenerating Together’ programme <a href="https://www.edie.net/industry-giants-commit-to-new-global-regenerative-agriculture-framework/">claims</a> to focus on four areas of impact - including water, soil, biodiversity, and climate. Through this programme, the SAI provides their clients with “risk screening assessment, outcome selection, the adoption of principles and practices, and the monitoring and assessment of progress”.</p> <p>Unilever’s business operations sustainability vice-president Eric Soubeiran said: “SAI Platform’s Regenerating Together programme <a href="https://www.edie.net/industry-giants-commit-to-new-global-regenerative-agriculture-framework/">has grown from an industry recognition</a> that we must evolve our approach to sustainable agriculture to continuously drive positive impact in our supply chains. We believe this framework sets a new standard for regenerative agriculture globally whilst providing the needed flexibility at farm level.”</p> <p>An SAI-powerpoint presentation for a European Commission workshop on 26 March 2026, tells us that according to SAI Public Affairs director Nikolai Porkohov, their programme is booming: “In the beef producing sector it has 26 members in 8 Europeans countries, for all crops it’s 130+ members, globally and for the dairy sector it’s 55+ members which represent 30-40% of the global milk volume”. The presentation then boasts about the “fast expanding implementation” and says “182 000+ farms worldwide belong to FSA-verified farm groups, 181 agricultural crops grown using FSA verified sustainable farming and around 10 million farmers participating in benchmarked schemes”.&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-06/SAI%202%20-%20sectors.jpg?itok=2kdw7GTR" width="800" height="450" alt="SAI sectors" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The last slide - under the sympathetic header ‘People powered agriculture’ - shows the four platforms developed by SAI, which carry the regenerative programme: ‘European Roundtable for Beef Sustainability’, ‘Farm Sustainability Assessment’ (FSA), ‘Regenerating Together Programme’ and ‘Sustainable Dairy Partnership’.</p> <p><strong>Watering down EU frameworks and influencing funding</strong></p> <p>In March 2026, the SAI presented at the launch of the EU’s "On-Farm Sustainability Compass" – an initiative which came out of EU benchmarking efforts. The On-Farm Sustainability Compass <a href="https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/compass/compass.html">focuses</a> on reduction of pesticide risk overall – but it fails to target absolute emissions reductions, instead targeting emissions reductions per euro.&nbsp;</p> <p>A second, but related, key demand from the private sector lobby push is increased support for regenerative agriculture under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the bloc’s €380 billion farm subsidy programme. Documents indicate that post-2027 CAP funding was <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/25.2%202025%2009%2012%20A2793%20Werner%20Bayer%20prep.pdf">discussed</a> in the meeting between Bayer and Commission officials, and features prominently in industry policy proposals.</p> <p>SAI has received funding, via the EU financed EIT Food programme, “to scale regenerative agriculture, including <a href="https://www.eitfood.eu/news/navarra-360%C2%BA-consolidates-more-than-4-000-hectares-under-regenerative-transition-and-activates-its-2026-2027-roadmap">a project called Navarra 360º</a> that tests the Regenerating Together Framework across several value chains”. This collaboration claims it will drive transformation and help farmers to adopt regenerative agriculture. In a recent announcement, EIT Food said it would “work together with Intermalta, Cargill, Danone Ecosystem and Alpro”. EIT Food is supported by <a href="https://eit.europa.eu/">the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)</a>, an EU body. <a href="https://www.eitfood.eu/files/PARTNERSHIP/EIT-Food_Partner-Catalogue_Sept-2025.pdf">EIT Food strategic partners include</a> global companies like Bayer, Cargill and Pepsico.&nbsp;</p> <p>Some groups, like OP2B have also <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/17.3%20OP2B%20EU%20POSITION%20PAPER_0.pdf">suggested</a> that their own frameworks could be used to determine which farming systems qualify for CAP support! Critics like Agroecology Europe<em> </em>and IFOAM<em>- Organics International </em>are<em> </em>alarmed<em> </em>about the prospect of private standards shaping the distribution of public funds.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>EU Parliament echoes industry concerns</strong></p> <p>The term ‘regenerative agriculture or practices’ has also started to appear in recent votes and <a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ENVI-PA-782326_EN.pdf">proposals tabled</a> in the European Parliament. Last April, a vote by the ENVI committee on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) saw<a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ENVI-AM-785430_EN.pdf"> several amendments make reference to rege</a>nerative agriculture, including from Romanian EPP MEPs Daniel Buda and Dan-Ştefan Motreanu, and Finnish MEP Sirpa Pietikäinen.&nbsp;</p> <p>Amendment 105, tabled by French far right MEPs says that “Regenerative agriculture, although still representing a limited proportion of European agricultural land, can generate positive effects in terms of soil restoration, carbon capture, rainwater management, agricultural productivity and food quality, and can help to strengthen the resilience of agricultural systems in dealing with climate change.” This was quite a remarkable intervention, given that far right politicians are not generally known for espousing concern for the environment.&nbsp;</p> <p>According to Dr. Matteo Metta, Policy Manager at <a href="https://www.agroecology-europe.org/">Agroecology Europe</a>, a blend of agri-food corporations and global carbon finance actors are pushing vague “regenerative” terminology into EU legal texts. Their aim is to weaken public governance and reshape research and investments towards self-defined private initiatives, such as carbon credits and proprietary labels. All while conveniently maintaining business-as-usual farming practices.</p> <p>Metta said: “this risks undermining the uptake of genuinely good agronomic practices, regardless of how they are labelled, especially among farmers seeking to avoid additional labelling costs imposed by dominant retailers and to move away from harmful chemical inputs, financial speculation, land grabbing, and the growing control exercised by agri-food commodity and data extraction actors.”</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2025-09/Agro%20ecology%20graphic%20C1%2024.jpg?itok=seNH9LX8" width="800" height="634" alt="image agro ecology - corporate capture" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-description field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Image by Nora Simone Capa Challco, Perú</p> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Visiones de la agroecología para el buenvivir</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Market based solutions</strong></p> <p>A third focus of the corporate lobby in its push for regenerative agriculture is not regulations and public support, but rather more market based: the <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/11.4%20Letter-Vision%20for%20Agriculture-Commissioner%20Ch.Hansen-signed.pdf">expansion</a> of so-called “ecosystem markets”, in which farmers are paid for environmental services such as carbon storage or biodiversity protection. Under these schemes, companies can purchase credits to offset environmental damage they are responsible for elsewhere in their supply chains.</p> <p>For example, last year <a href="https://agorocarbonalliance.com/">Agoro Carbon</a>, a major provider of agriculture-based carbon credits signed <a href="https://agorocarbonalliance.com/news-entry/agoro-carbon-microsoft-12year-agreement-soil-carbon-removal-credits/">a 12 year agreement with Microsoft</a> to supply 2.6 million soil carbon credits from projects across the United States. Agoro Carbon was founded in 2021 by Norwegian fertiliser giant Yara. The company<a href="https://www.yara.com/"> </a>dominates the global market for nitrogen fertiliser, and has been dubbed the<a href="https://www.grain.org/article/entries/5270-the-exxons-of-agriculture.Travaux"> Exxon of agriculture</a>. Not only are their products the largest source of agricultural emissions, but they are also<a href="https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/jeq/articles/38/6/2295/"> a major cause of organic matter depletion in soil. </a>Nevertheless Agoro Carbon claims to “collaborate with farmers and ranchers to store carbon in the soil using regenerative farming practices such as cover cropping, reduced tillage, and enhanced grazing techniques” - in order to then sell on carbon credits to climate polluters.&nbsp;</p> <p>Proponents of this approach argue that these markets could provide farmers with new income streams and incentives to adopt more sustainable practices. But critics say they <a href="https://www.foei.org/publication/biodiversity-offsets-and-credits-frequently-asked-questions/">rely</a> on contested assumptions about offsetting, and risk allowing companies to avoid making deeper cuts to emissions and addressing environmental harm.&nbsp;</p> <p>A growing body of research has <a href="https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/news/carbon-offsets-have-failed-25-years-and-most-should-be-phased-out-research-0">raised</a> questions about the effectiveness of such schemes, particularly in the case of soil carbon credits. Campaigners argue that, rather than driving systemic change, these mechanisms can <a href="https://globalforestcoalition.org/biodiversity-offsets-press-release/">act as</a> a “smokescreen”, enabling continued pollution while claiming to deliver environmental progress.</p> <p>Back in 2023 SAI Platform’s director general Dionys Forster said: “With our Regenerating Together programme, we are proud to be driving collaboration across the food and beverage industry at what is a critical moment for the sector. Regenerative agriculture is the way forward to ensure productivity and farm ecosystem viability – we must act now and further transition towards farming practices that protect the future of our planet.”</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Influencing EU policy discussions at many levels</strong></p> <p>As lobbying around regenerative agriculture intensifies, civil society groups and researchers are raising concerns that this dubious concept is beginning to influence EU policy discussions. References to regenerative agriculture have started to appear in EU policy documents - including several references in the 2025 <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/soil-health/soil-monitoring-law_en">soil monitoring law</a>, and others in a recent <a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ENVI-AM-785430_EN.pdf">amendment</a> linked to CAP negotiations.</p> <p>During her meeting with agro-chemical giant Bayer, the Director-General for DG AGRI, Elisabeth Werner, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/25.2%202025%2009%2012%20A2793%20Werner%20Bayer%20prep.pdf">expressed support for regenerative agriculture</a>, a ‘new production system which contributes to climate mitigation’ but which implies ‘risks for farmers’ and therefore needs support. As shown before the 40 years Rodale Institute research implies that organic agriculture actually means similar or better financial gains for farmers.</p> <p>But Werner even indicated in her recent meeting with Bayer that the ‘proposals for CAP after 2027, provide for a wide range of tools to continue support for sustainable practices like regenerative agriculture and other forms of sustainable agriculture. One example is the proposed new farm transition payment’. Interesting is to read the ‘internal’ side note in which DG Agri (rightfully) asks itself ‘how much Bayer sees regenerative associated with the use of herbicides, which can be an important trade-off of regenerative agriculture associated with no tillage’.&nbsp;</p> <p>Indeed, for example <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/04/no-impunity-agrochemical-corporations">Bayer is trying everything it possibly can</a> to keep (American) farmers hooked on glyphosate based herbicides, including changing US law and <a href="https://thepeoplevspoison.org/">going to the Supreme Court</a> to seek impunity.</p> <p>Environmental and food systems campaigners are concerned that the success of the corporate lobby campaign to centre the concept of regenerative agriculture could sideline synergic farming approaches that do actually meet and improve institutional EU frameworks (e.g. organic, biodynamic, agroecology). This is particularly worrying in an era where the EU is rolling back regulation which would create hard limits to farming practices that harm nature and health, in order to bring agricultural practices in line with biodiversity and climate goals.</p> <p>EU advisory body the <a href="https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/news-media/news/regenerative-agriculture-should-anchor-eu-green-farming-and-economic-policies-says-eesc">European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) also called on the EU</a> to scale up regenerative agriculture in an own-initiative opinion adopted at its June 2025 plenary. This is concerning given that the opinion fails to recognise the reason why millions of EU taxpayer money has been used for decades (via the CAP) to finance <a href="https://euobserver.com/97567/in-deep-shit-eus-massive-subsidised-manure-problem/">unsustainable agricultural practices</a>. All while organic agriculture which has clearly demonstrated benefits for ecosystems and farmers alike, continues to get little support.&nbsp;</p> <p>The EESC also <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C_202504207">references</a> numerous business scheme definitions in its opinion, including OP2B and SAI. It does this without mentioning any of the concerns voiced by scientists, experts and campaigners regarding the use of regenerative agriculture for corporate greenwashing. The EESC does at least recognise the problem of the lack of an agreed definition for the concept, stating “there are over 100 different definitions”. To add to the confusion, it then outlines another definition of its own:</p> <p>“The definition of ‘regenerative agriculture’ for the EU could be: ‘Regenerative Agriculture is an adaptive and holistic farming approach applying practically proven and science-based methods with positive impacts on the environment (including but not limited to healthy and living soils¹, reduced emissions, carbon capture, reduced pesticide risks, water management and biodiversity), on farming communities’ livelihoods and on public health, ensuring resilience of yields, competitiveness and efficiency, and social outcomes (livelihoods, attractiveness of the sector, generational renewal and rural areas)’. Regenerative forms of agriculture are driven by results and outcomes which can be defined, measured and verified rather than a list of prescribed practices (...).”&nbsp;</p> <p>The problem here is that though this definition recognises the importance of “reduced pesticide risks”, it does not mention reduced synthetic fertiliser use, nor the prescribed use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which is required by EU law since 2009. This is strange, given that a report by NABU, a German environmental organization, mentions that “the latest research shows that farmers, even in high yield regions, can increase yields by up to 15%, decrease synthetic nitrogen use by up to 23% and fuel use by over 75%, while supporting the sustainable use, reduction and<a href="https://www.nabu.de/imperia/md/content/nabude/landwirtschaft/250325-nabu-gkb-studie-konservierende-landwirtschaft.pdf"> phase-out of pesticides</a>.”</p> <p>But regulators, not corporate actors, need to define the rules of the game, as markets are not rewarding the reduction of pesticide use. As <a href="https://www.pan-europe.info/sites/pan-europe.info/files/public/resources/Letters/19022024_Sustainable%20Use%20of%20Pesticides%20Regulation%20%28SUR%29%20-%20Integrated%20Pest.pdf">Pesticide Action Network (PAN) wrote</a> “the lack of implementation of IPM since the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive (EU 2009) demonstrates that without setting mandatory rules, <a href="https://www.foodwatch.org/en/the-failure-of-integrated-pest-management-ipm-in-the-european-union">no pesticide reduction will occur</a>. Therefore, mandatory IPM and CS rules are essential for the SUR to be effective. IPM offers a viable and effective approach to substitute and significantly reduce pesticides.” In other words: why expect a company like Bayer to support genuinely regenerative agriculture, when such an endeavour would lead to the reduction of its own sales?&nbsp;</p> <p>EESC further warned that “current EU policy does not go far enough to promote regenerative forms of agriculture, despite their potential to improve farmer incomes, enhance productivity and yield resilience, support generational renewal and rural livelihoods, while contributing to climate and biodiversity objectives”. By doing so the EESC was the first EU institution to officially launch the discussion about the benefits of regenerative agriculture. This coincides with the push from Agrobusiness.</p> <p>The EESC rapporteur Stoyan Tchoukanov clearly sees advantages: “We see regenerative agriculture as an opportunity to define a new positive narrative for European agriculture, one that is focused on what we are for: healthy soils, strong rural communities, and sustainable food systems”.</p> <p>Sounds good, but like the rapidly spreading private sector outcome-based approaches, the EESC calls for a “common, results-based definition of regenerative agriculture, focused on measurable outcomes like soil health, carbon storage, and rural well-being, rather than a rigid list of techniques”. But the EESC also urged the EU to recognisz ‘soil as a public good’ and align key agriculture related policies - from public (CAP) funding to regulation. In its report the EESC outlines four important points.</p> <ol> <li>Though the term “regenerative agriculture” is not yet enshrined in any EU law, its core principles are increasingly reflected in major EU policy initiatives.</li> <li>The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 2023–2027 allows Member States to fund regenerative-style practices, such as soil cover, crop rotation, and reduced tillage through eco-schemes.</li> <li>The proposed EU Soil Health Law has opened the door to soil health improvement and regenerative principles, with stakeholder consultations calling for their inclusion (of soil health in agricultural policy) via measurable indicators.</li> <li>The 2024 Nature Restoration Law sets legally binding targets to improve biodiversity and soil carbon, both of which are key outcomes of regenerative farming, even if not mentioned by name.</li> </ol> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>NGOs and farmers joining the corporate chorus&nbsp;</strong></p> <p>While the private sector has led much of the push to promote the term regenerative agriculture as a basis for decision-making in Brussels, NGOs and farmer-led initiatives that work closely with industry have also played a role.</p> <p>One prominent player is the European Alliance for Regenerative Agriculture (EARA), which hosted a European tour to promote regenerative agriculture. In February 2025 it <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/10.1%20Follow%20up%20-%20Invitation%20Commissioner%20Hansen%20opening%20remarks%20high%20level%20EP%20dinner%205th%20February.pdf">invited</a> Commissioner Hansen to speak at its opening dinner, where it advertised the opportunity to meet corporate representatives from across the agri-food chain.&nbsp;<br><br>Other backers include the US conservation non-profit The Nature Conservancy, which has been <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/362224/environment-groups-meat-industry-lies-global-warming-climate-change-wwf">criticised</a> for being <a href="https://foe.org/uncategorized/leading-ngos-expose-greenwashing-u-s-roundtable-sustainable-beef-demand-real-sustainability-plan/">involved</a> in “greenwashing” corporate partnerships. In February 2025 it <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/10.1%20Follow%20up%20-%20Invitation%20Commissioner%20Hansen%20opening%20remarks%20high%20level%20EP%20dinner%205th%20February.pdf">wrote</a> to the EU Commission, promoting a number of corporate-linked initiatives.&nbsp;</p> <p>When EARA presented it’s report ‘<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r03AjcssW7vLQjsH40Y2UGjT2SI3MLYg/view?_hsmi=110235743">Regenerating Europe from the ground up</a>’– co-sponsored by Unilever and others – executive-director Simon Krämer, didn’t shy away from big words by saying that the “green revolution can be put to the dustbin of history’ and that the ‘4^th agricultural revolution’ had arrived.&nbsp;</p> <p>Some environmental and farmers groups indeed see regenerative agriculture as a very useful concept that can encourage cross-sectoral working to transform the food system.&nbsp;</p> <p>However, critics are more and more concerned that their collaboration with companies can <a href="https://www.desmog.com/2025/08/06/revealed-how-the-meat-industry-uses-environmental-groups-to-make-beef-seem-climate-friendly/">provide</a> cover for industry players which have a history of <a href="https://www.desmog.com/2025/08/06/revealed-how-the-meat-industry-uses-environmental-groups-to-make-beef-seem-climate-friendly/">using</a> collaborations with NGOs and farmers to gain credibility with the public, regulators and in their public relations <a href="https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/17/monsanto-red-flag-glyphosate-roundup-eu/">strategies</a>.&nbsp;</p> <p>When asked about this EARA replied that it acknowledged the risks of corporate co-option, but said it supported collaborations with companies as “there is a corresponding risk in the opposite direction: if those with genuine expertise in regenerative agriculture disengage from corporate actors entirely those actors simply proceed without independent feedback.”&nbsp;<br><br>They also added that their approach to collaboration was “case by case”. They stated that their joint work with companies included collaborations on events and advocacy actions, but that the alliance does not take funding from corporations or their foundations.&nbsp;<br><br>However numerous groups, including advisors at the International Panel of Experts on Food Systems, have <a href="https://ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/SmokeAndMirrors.pdf">cautioned</a> about the risks of using the term regenerative agriculture to refer to sustainable farming - pointing to its vulnerability to corporate co-option and highlighting alternatives such as agroecology, which come with clearer principles and definitions.</p> <p><strong>A smokescreen for agrobusiness?</strong><br><br>Yogi Hale Hendlin, Public Health Scientist at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, commented: "Regenerative agriculture is the new buzz word, and provides a smoke screen for agrobusiness to conceal destructive monoculture practices and input-intensive ways of doing agriculture. It's a bit like fossil fuel companies such as Exxon saying "yeah but we are also investing in fuels from algae" while keeping 98% of their income from fossil fuels."</p> <p>Hendlin criticises a “corporate driven narrative of regenerative agriculture”, which lapses back on the use of technologies such as drones, precision agriculture. And by using 'regeneration’ corporations seem to be pretending to create a top-down approach to existing practices of agroecology. “But there is no way you can scale up regenerative agriculture via a sort of 'one size fits all’ approach — in terms of regulations or actual farming — and expect better environmental and social outcomes," said Hendlin.</p> <p><a name="docs-internal-guid-a0dbb461-7fff-46a6-c9"></a> In November 2025 researchers published a critical deep dive analysis in Nature (‘<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s44264-025-00100-1">Beyond the buzz: analyzing actors promoting regenerative agriculture in Europe</a>’): ”Regenerative agriculture faces significant criticism including concerns regarding exaggerated or overly simplistic claims on the <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0030727021998063">impact of its practices</a>, a certain feeling of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-024-10603-1">dogma or buzz</a>, the absence of<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912424000725?via%3Dihub"> government-supported implementation standards</a>, and <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2024.2397260">corporate greenwashing</a>. While <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912421000845?via%3Dihub">resistance to new or emerging approaches</a> to farming is not uncommon, it is crucial to better understand the key players driving the buzz (and fuzz) around regenerative agriculture and the narratives they promote to evaluate the adoption of practices, encourage policy development, <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-022-01281-1">and shape public perception</a>.”</p> <p>Indeed, while regenerative agriculture might be palatable to business and policymakers, as long as it’s not well defined, it risks giving a green veneer to business as-usual, rather than delivering transformation of food systems at the scale required to protect people and planet into the future.</p> <p><br><strong>_{This article was made possible with support from NaNa Bio Bv}</strong></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-06/Banner-food-summit.jpg?itok=K2jyE1zW" width="800" height="541" alt="protest regen ag" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Regenerative agriculture - FINAL.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/Regenerative%20agriculture%20-%20FINAL.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Regenerative agriculture - FINAL.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Bayer Werner meeting_minute_88fd85cb-40ec-49cb-afad-5166bd5c6c58-1.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/Bayer%20Werner%20meeting_minute_88fd85cb-40ec-49cb-afad-5166bd5c6c58-1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bayer Werner meeting_minute_88fd85cb-40ec-49cb-afad-5166bd5c6c58-1.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="25.2 2025 09 12 A2793 Werner Bayer prep.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/25.2%202025%2009%2012%20A2793%20Werner%20Bayer%20prep.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">25.2 2025 09 12 A2793 Werner Bayer prep.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="12.1 The EU’s agriculture and food agenda – request for a meeting in Davos, January_Redacted.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/12.1%20The%20EU%E2%80%99s%20agriculture%20and%20food%20agenda%20%E2%80%93%20request%20for%20a%20meeting%20in%20Davos%2C%20January_Redacted.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">12.1 The EU’s agriculture and food agenda – request for a meeting in Davos, January_Redacted.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="17.1 Summary Report BASIS CAB HANSEN 98.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/17.1%20Summary%20Report%20BASIS%20CAB%20HANSEN%2098.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">17.1 Summary Report BASIS CAB HANSEN 98.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="17.3 OP2B EU POSITION PAPER.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/17.3%20OP2B%20EU%20POSITION%20PAPER.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">17.3 OP2B EU POSITION PAPER.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="17.2 BASIS CAB HANSEN 98.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/17.2%20BASIS%20CAB%20HANSEN%2098.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">17.2 BASIS CAB HANSEN 98.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="17.3 OP2B EU POSITION PAPER.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/17.3%20OP2B%20EU%20POSITION%20PAPER_0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">17.3 OP2B EU POSITION PAPER.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="9 Regenerative agriculture farm - UNILEVER - 24-10-2025 - Spain.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/9%20Regenerative%20agriculture%20farm%20-%20UNILEVER%20-%2024-10-2025%20-%20Spain.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">9 Regenerative agriculture farm - UNILEVER - 24-10-2025 - Spain.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="15.1 Meeting request CEO Rabobank Mr. Stefaan Decraene, 20-21 February 2025.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/15.1%20Meeting%20request%20CEO%20Rabobank%20Mr.%20Stefaan%20Decraene%2C%2020-21%20February%202025.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">15.1 Meeting request CEO Rabobank Mr. Stefaan Decraene, 20-21 February 2025.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="15.3 a Agrofood vision &amp; benchmarking_Redacted.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/15.3%20a%20Agrofood%20vision%20%26%20benchmarking_Redacted.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">15.3 a Agrofood vision &amp; benchmarking_Redacted.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Unilever 19.1 email - 2026-01-21T140344.322_Redacted.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/Unilever%2019.1%20email%20-%202026-01-21T140344.322_Redacted.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Unilever 19.1 email - 2026-01-21T140344.322_Redacted.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="2.2 email with Minutes of the Meeting with NAT ON regenerative agriculture.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/2.2%20email%20with%20Minutes%20of%20the%20Meeting%20with%20NAT%20ON%20regenerative%20agriculture.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2.2 email with Minutes of the Meeting with NAT ON regenerative agriculture.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="4. Minutes of the Meeting Finance Earth EIB with DG AGRI_Redacted.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/4.%20Minutes%20of%20the%20Meeting%20Finance%20Earth%20EIB%20with%20DG%20AGRI_Redacted.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">4. Minutes of the Meeting Finance Earth EIB with DG AGRI_Redacted.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="11.4 Letter-Vision for Agriculture-Commissioner Ch.Hansen-signed.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/11.4%20Letter-Vision%20for%20Agriculture-Commissioner%20Ch.Hansen-signed.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">11.4 Letter-Vision for Agriculture-Commissioner Ch.Hansen-signed.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="3.2 email exchange on the Green Claims Directive - implications for regenerative agriculture.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/3.2%20email%20exchange%20on%20the%20Green%20Claims%20Directive%20-%20implications%20for%20regenerative%20agriculture.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">3.2 email exchange on the Green Claims Directive - implications for regenerative agriculture.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Joint Statement_Regenerative Greenwashing_Final Version.docx.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/Joint%20Statement_Regenerative%20Greenwashing_Final%20Version.docx.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Joint Statement_Regenerative Greenwashing_Final Version.docx.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="10.1 Follow up - Invitation Commissioner Hansen opening remarks high level EP dinner 5th February.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/10.1%20Follow%20up%20-%20Invitation%20Commissioner%20Hansen%20opening%20remarks%20high%20level%20EP%20dinner%205th%20February.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">10.1 Follow up - Invitation Commissioner Hansen opening remarks high level EP dinner 5th February.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="11.1 Invitation Commissioner Hansen opening remarks high level EP dinner 5th February.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-06/11.1%20Invitation%20Commissioner%20Hansen%20opening%20remarks%20high%20level%20EP%20dinner%205th%20February.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">11.1 Invitation Commissioner Hansen opening remarks high level EP dinner 5th February.pdf</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Mon, 01 Jun 2026 15:09:00 +0000 Hans Van Schaaren 2400 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/05/182-out-184 <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> This is what corporate capture looks like </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">27.05.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Check out our new podcast episode with Kenneth Haar and Rachel Tansey.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><iframe style="border-radius:12px;" data-testid="embed-iframe" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/episode/3qVrzPuFOPJOqD3waTgY0r?utm_source=generator" width="100%" height="352" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; fullscreen; picture-in-picture" loading="lazy"></iframe></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>We need to talk about what deregulation actually means in Brussels right now. It means one commissioner holding 184 meetings with external actors, 182 of them with business groups. It means indigenous Sami reindeer herders in Sweden losing their last migration route to a fast-tracked mine. It means the public funding the polluters' infrastructure while they keep the profits.</p> <p>In this episode of EU Watchdog Radio, Joana from <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en">⁠Corporate Europe Observatory⁠</a> talks to colleagues Kenneth Haar and Rachel Tansey about their two new reports exposing the corporate machinery behind the EU's deregulation agenda — and the communities already bearing the costs. Check them out:<strong> </strong><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/what-corporate-capture-looks">⁠This is what corporate capture looks like!⁠</a> and <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/05/permission-pollute">⁠Permission to pollute⁠</a>.</p> <p>This is not simplification. This is corporate capture.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><iframe style="border-radius:12px;" data-testid="embed-iframe" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/show/3cT4OhyBAECnwyuhAWTp2b?utm_source=generator" width="100%" height="352" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; fullscreen; picture-in-picture" loading="lazy"></iframe></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Who we are</strong></h3> <p>This podcast is produced by CEO and Counter Balance. Both NGOs raise awareness on the importance of good governance in the EU by researching issues like lobbying of large and powerful industries, corporate capture of decision making, corruption, fraud, human rights violations in areas like Big Tech, agro-business, biotech &amp; chemical companies, the financial sector &amp; public investment banks, trade, energy &amp; climate, scientific research and much more…</p> <p>You can find us wherever you listen to your podcasts. Stay tuned for more independent and in-depth information that concerns every EU citizen!</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5PapkQdK9Rw?si=1KZrUjkxcjExeepe" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3>Automatic transcript of the episode (there might be slight changes to the final audio version):</h3> <p>Hi, welcome! I’m Joana Louçã, comms officer at Corporate Europe Observatory.</p> <p>EU Watchdog Radio is the podcast we host with Counter Balance, and today I will talk to my colleagues Kenneth Haar and Rachel Tansey about two reports we have published and which focus on different aspects of how close we are to loosing hard-won victories in social, environmental, health and digital rights.&nbsp;</p> <p>We are at a tipping point. Under the guise of simplification, the European Commission has started an unprecedented deregulation frenzy of rules that will impact all of us, wherever we live, whatever we work on. At CEO, we have been involved in a wide coalition against it, and have been doing what we do best: researching and exposing what is happening behind the scenes. So in this episode, Kenneth will talk about his recent report “This is what corporate capture looks like! How corporations run the EU deregulation agenda” and Rachel will discuss “Permission to Pollute: EU rips up permit rules and funds dirty infrastructure”. Let’s go!</p> <p><strong>Thank you very much, Kenneth. &nbsp;Can you let me know &nbsp;why you decided to write &nbsp;the report, this is what corporate capture looks like and why did you decide to call it like that?&nbsp;</strong> &nbsp;</p> <p>Sure. At the moment, Brussels politics is about deregulation. So we see an immense effort by the institutions to roll back EU laws &nbsp;adopted to protect the public interest. Officially, it's about simplifying rules to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. &nbsp;In reality, it's about rolling back decisions &nbsp;taken &nbsp;within &nbsp;the last couple of years to protect the public interest. there are attacks on &nbsp;rules to protect the environment. There are attempts to undermine climate policies, &nbsp;they go back on promises to regulate big tech and the list goes on. an obvious question to ask is where does this all come from? &nbsp;Who are calling the shots and who is pointing the institutions &nbsp;or the Commission in particular to go for the European laws that we now see changed? So that's &nbsp;in a nutshell is what the report is about. It's about figuring out how the list of laws they want to change &nbsp;is done and how the specific ideas for changes emerge. And the title, This is What Covert Capture Looks Like indicates the results of the reward basically. &nbsp;That the people we see in the shadows, if you look just a little bit under the surface, is covert lobby groups. They work closely with the commission. um to develop this &nbsp;simplification or this deregulation agenda. &nbsp;<br>One specific aspect of this deregulation, as our climate team found, is about permitting, over to Rachel.<br>Yeah, so &nbsp;basically we were digging into industry lobbying in lots of different areas &nbsp;relating to climate, energy, industrial policy and so on &nbsp;by doing loads of access to documents requests. &nbsp;And when we were analysing these hundreds of documents that we got back, and yes, that did require a lot of coffee, &nbsp;it quickly became clear that a lot of the companies... &nbsp;in lots of different sectors were asking for the same thing, for the EU to rip up its rules on permitting for their polluting projects. So permits sound like a pretty dry topic, at least to me, but they're actually one of the most concrete ways that communities around Europe are protected from the worst behaviour of big business. EU permitting laws require companies to assess things like the impacts that their projects will have, whether it's a mine, a pipeline, a factory or an airport. the impacts that they'll have on our drinking water, on wildlife and natural habitats, on the people who live close by, and also to consult those people who are affected by this project. &nbsp;So ripping apart these rules &nbsp;by weakening and providing widespread new exemptions to them, &nbsp;or in EU parlance by simplifying them, &nbsp;in practice what that means is slashing &nbsp;hard-won social and environmental protections that underpin those permitting rules. &nbsp;So when we saw that these rules, &nbsp;were under attack, we thought that this is a topic, how the EU is giving industry permission to pollute at the request of some of its most polluting companies &nbsp;is a topic that we should expose and fight back on.<br>Back to Kenneth and to “This is what corporate capture looks like!”</p> <p><strong>Yeah, and it's obviously also a pun with the slogan, this is what democracy looks like, when right now we're seeing &nbsp;far from democracy in action. Exactly. It's quite the opposite. &nbsp;Yeah. And can you &nbsp;briefly describe &nbsp;the results that you got &nbsp;in your study? &nbsp;</strong></p> <p>We had a pretty good idea what we would find and &nbsp;we were not very surprised. are the simplification agenda or the deregulation agenda. It's developed in close cooperation between the European Commission and business organisations, most of them from the corporate lobbying community. So the report has statistics that show how most commissioners talk almost exclusively to businesses about what they should do to &nbsp;improve, so to speak, European laws. um For instance, uh last year in 2025, the um commissioners involved in the simplification work had 84% of their meetings with business groups. um If you zoom in on perhaps the most important commissioner, the one who is responsible for the overall deregulation campaign, Dombrowski is his name. He had 184 meetings &nbsp;with external actors and 182 of them were with business groups. &nbsp;
If this number is not shocking enough and you’re more a percentage kind of person, 182 out of 184 meetings is 98.9%. &nbsp;But that’s not all. &nbsp; If you look at the industry commissioner, the French Sechonne, he had 84 meetings &nbsp;about deregulation and they were all with business groups. So already there you get an indication of how &nbsp;this works. um The commission has set up a whole... complex system of dialogues with the business groups to make sure that &nbsp;businesses are &nbsp;able to provide input and help the Commission &nbsp;develop their plans.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>And among these dialogues, these like moments when the commission can hear uh industry, there are two &nbsp;specific ones that have very interesting sounding names. &nbsp;could like &nbsp;if it were a fiction, they could not have come up with with &nbsp;better names, which are implementation dialogues and reality checks. &nbsp;So what's what's are they? &nbsp;What are those kind of meetings and and how? Like how far have they been dominated by &nbsp;corporate interests? &nbsp;</strong></p> <p>
Yeah, &nbsp;they are, I mean, they are both, &nbsp;they are two types of meetings that have been invented, so to speak, um to establish a system of dialogues between &nbsp;mainly business groups and the commission about the simplification agenda. &nbsp;it's expressly, it's... &nbsp; The explicit purpose of implementation dialogues and reality checks &nbsp;are to help the Commission figure out where to go next, what laws to &nbsp;change next. &nbsp;And they are broadly similar in structure, except that the reality checks &nbsp;are uh practically happening under the radar. So they're much less transparent than the implementation dialogues. um It's not that, I mean, sometimes you do come across meetings where you would have a few representatives from trade unions or from civil society, but broadly speaking, &nbsp;they are all dominated by &nbsp;business groups. So they live fully up to the plan, to the &nbsp;strategy, to the expectations, you could say, that this is to provide a &nbsp;channel for business groups. influence the Commission &nbsp;on the deregulation agenda.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Back to Rachel, it is interesting that, &nbsp;like she said, so many different things are included in this permitting &nbsp;umbrella, which, like she says, it does sound dry, but it has very concrete consequences &nbsp;for people. What were, then, the main results of the report? &nbsp;</strong></p> <p>We've seen that since the start of the second &nbsp;von der Leyen Commission, the European Commission, these rules, permitting rules have been under attack from big tech, big oil, &nbsp;mining and metals lobbies, chemicals groups and big business clubs. &nbsp;And that they've been making demands to kind of rip these rules up, often at the invitation of the commission, which has opened its arms almost exclusively to industry to input on this topic. at the expense of trade unions, public health groups, indigenous communities, environmental groups and so on. um And some of the key industry demands that we're seeing being delivered &nbsp;include &nbsp;fast-tracked, sped-up permitting for industrial energy infrastructure &nbsp;that sidelines democratic participation, for example, of the communities affected, which can curtail their rights. &nbsp;We're seeing simpler, quicker environmental assessments &nbsp;being allowed, &nbsp;sometimes none at all. which means less protection for our water, soil, air, wildlife, birds, natural habitats. Again, really far reaching. &nbsp;More dirty projects are getting classed as strategic or in the public interest, which means &nbsp;they're getting special treatment in permitting processes. Their interest elevated &nbsp;above environmental or social concerns. &nbsp;That's going to result in human health being endangered by &nbsp;deadly pollutants in our water soils. &nbsp;as you see things like mines and pipelines and factories getting exemptions from these rules. &nbsp;We've also seen water protection and nature protection laws opened up to be weakened, which brings further threats to things like biodiversity. &nbsp;I'd like to point out that these &nbsp;changes aren't all happening in one place, &nbsp;but through changes to existing laws, &nbsp;through new strategies and new proposed laws with more on the way, &nbsp;and the application of these statuses like being strategic, being in the public interest, uh through existing instruments and the application of those labels to more polluting and problematic &nbsp;industrial projects. &nbsp;Then, &nbsp;I mean, the second big thing is that these changes, weakening permitting rules, &nbsp;have come about through unprecedented levels of privileged access for corporations. &nbsp;And, you know, this attack on permitting is part of a bigger, broader push to deregulate at the European level &nbsp;that's happening at the request of industry. &nbsp; What we saw is that on top of existing channels of influence, like directly lobbying the commission and dominating that lobbying, &nbsp;other things like advisory forums that &nbsp;privilege industry's views and industrial alliances, &nbsp;this has also been fed into through new channels of influence designed to put corporate interests first, &nbsp;from more closed-door workshops with industry to these new skewed consultations like reality checks and implementation dialogues.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>The same implementation dialogues and reality check Kenneth was speaking about.</strong></p> <p>What's more, &nbsp;we also see that companies aren't just using these channels of influence to push &nbsp;the Commission to fast track polluting projects by ripping up permitting rules, they're also pushing for public subsidies to build them. &nbsp;And again, the Commission is saying yes, through new mechanisms that allow public money &nbsp;to be used to pay for private companies' risks, &nbsp;well guess what, they still take the profits. &nbsp;That means we're not just going to be living with more pollution, we're actually going to be paying the polluters for the privilege.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>It's really shocking &nbsp;the fact that, yeah, what he just said, that &nbsp;we're not &nbsp;only allowing them, we're actually spending public money &nbsp;financing &nbsp;those &nbsp;things. &nbsp;</strong><br><strong>By the way, I was not recording this podcast in a war zone, this is the sound of what seem to be never ending works in the streets of Brussels! Kenneth also had something to add about the tool the Commission is using to cause these changes with uncharacteristic speed.</strong></p> <p>Kenneth:<br>A lot of this is about speed. &nbsp;The Commission &nbsp;and many governments as well, &nbsp;and certainly &nbsp;a lot of corporate lobby groups are very eager to do this &nbsp;in a very &nbsp;quick manner, to be very fast about changing European laws. uh they manage to do it speedily in various ways. One of them is &nbsp;to produce their proposals in the form of omnibus laws. And Omnibus is about changing several European laws in one go. So for instance, on chemicals, when the commission sets out to change the rules on chemicals, they don't just go for one law at a time. They put three or four laws together and change them in one go. So that's basically what Omnibus is about. And last year in 2025, they presented ten different omnibus laws and I think by &nbsp;judging by what's going on at the moment we will see more or less the same number this year.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>And then there were three specific case studies that &nbsp;you worked on. &nbsp;in the report because again, mean, such a broad topic, &nbsp;it was &nbsp;relevant to find specific examples of what was going on. &nbsp;So can you &nbsp;talk us through them? &nbsp;</strong></p> <p>Yeah, so we had three case studies, all quite different, but they're looking at the risks that come from &nbsp;gutting EU permitting rules. &nbsp;So we had one on data centres and specifically we looked at this huge data centre build out that's been happening in Ireland. So part of this kind of AI boom, data centers &nbsp;consume vast amounts of electricity in Dublin, half of Dublin's electricity demand, which pushes up prices &nbsp;and also has prevented households actually getting power. They also &nbsp;mean households actually pay far more for electricity than these big tech companies. &nbsp;We're also seeing that &nbsp;companies operating data centers are building new dirty energy, new gas power plants on site. &nbsp;to power their data centers, which is having terrible climate impacts. &nbsp;And we're seeing that Big Tech has been targeting EU permitting rules that could be a barrier for new developments, but also rules that provide a legal recourse for communities on the ground who are fighting these projects. &nbsp;And, you know, they have these kind of existing EU rules that they can &nbsp;use in the courts.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>The second case study was about CO2 pipelines</strong></p> <p>The EU's plans to keep using fossil fuels &nbsp;rely on the idea that we can capture CO2 from polluting installations em and from &nbsp;fossil fuel &nbsp;use em and transport it through pipelines. They want to &nbsp;19,000 kilometres of them em to places where they can store them. Now there's huge problems with this technology. It has been failing for decades. Nonetheless, &nbsp;what hasn't been paid a lot of attention is how dangerous the CO2 pipelines themselves are. &nbsp;So in the US, &nbsp;where we have more of these pipelines, &nbsp;there have been accidents that see &nbsp;clouds of CO2 spreading very rapidly, &nbsp;which, so CO2 is a gas that suffocates you &nbsp;and it can injure or kill. &nbsp;In the US, in places where these pipelines are, the population density is far, far lower than in Europe. m And we're seeing plans from, for example, Germany to put these pipelines through densely populated areas, &nbsp;in Italy, um through areas that are flood and earthquake prone, m and through areas that also should be protected &nbsp;as they have &nbsp;kind of EU nature protection status. But again, because the projects, these CO2 pipelines, are given a public interest label, they're getting permission anyway. m And we're also seeing that it's really the fossil fuel industry, big oil lobby groups who've been shaping the new loopholes to permitting rules so that CO2 pipelines can be built because this is an escape patch for the fossil fuel industry to keep operating. &nbsp;And we've got a new EU law coming later this year that's going to expect it to really ease permitting even further for these pipelines. &nbsp;</p> <p><strong>The last case study Rachel worked on is about a new critical raw materials mine and &nbsp;iron &nbsp;ore mine in northern Sweden. &nbsp;It's run by Swedish company &nbsp;called Elkab &nbsp;and it threatens to destroy a millennia-old way of life of the indigenous &nbsp;Sami people of Gabna. &nbsp;</strong></p> <p>They're reindeer herders and the mine will cut off the last seasonal migration route &nbsp;for the reindeer herds. &nbsp;And the practices of this indigenous group &nbsp;also help protect the &nbsp;Arctic from climate change. &nbsp;Yet we've seen that this mine called Pergasia has won fast-track permits through, again, an EU-designated strategic status. &nbsp;We've seen that Elkab, together with a EU lobby group called Euromines, which it's by the way the boss of, &nbsp;has been pushing for the fast track permitting for mining. &nbsp;it's also, Euromines has also teamed up with the fossil fuel industry and other polluting industries to create an informal permitting coalition, which is demanding even more widespread EU deregulation &nbsp;of permitting rules. &nbsp;</p> <p><strong>We are almost at the end of this episode, but before we go, I’ll just take one minute of your time. &nbsp;In an increasingly challenging and complex world, it is our hope that our work, analysis and research makes a vital contribution, so we wanted to reach out to you today with a direct request. Our deep dive investigations of who is shaping policy – and in whose interests; and the work of democratic scrutiny, coalition building, and sustaining an informed and active public all take huge amounts of work and resources behind the scenes.&nbsp;</strong></p> <p><strong>We are a very small, independent group, buffeted by an ever more hostile political environment, and we rely on the contributions of those of you who voluntarily choose to support us financially. Our research is freely accessible and always will be. But if you can chip in with a contribution, it would help us immeasurably. In short, if you find what we do at all valuable, please take the next step and donate today. Every amount helps, visit our website or go to corporateeurope.org/support-ceo. Thank you! Back to Kenneth and Rachel</strong></p> <p>Kenneth: Yeah, it's em astounding how quick ah things are changing and &nbsp;all these things are happening. &nbsp;And then, like, finally, &nbsp;if someone &nbsp;hears this conversation, reads your report and wants to get involved, &nbsp;because people are fighting against deregulation, this is the good news. &nbsp;So if someone wants to get involved &nbsp;in the fight against deregulation, what can they do? Yeah. &nbsp;
It depends on who you are and where you are of course. At the moment we need lot of organisations to be involved in campaigns in the European institutions to roll this whole agenda back. &nbsp;We have a &nbsp;growing network of organisations called the Roos2Protect network, which I believe is uh a brilliant vehicle for &nbsp;the fight against this whole agenda. But I think um it's important to say as well that this is something that functions at a lot of levels. &nbsp;Often there are things you can do locally too. &nbsp;If the Commission for instance sets out to protect dangerous pesticides, there are things you can do locally to act against it. Have your politicians speak out, &nbsp;have them reject the European agenda and have your politicians make decisions that ban those pesticides even if Brussels says otherwise.&nbsp;</p> <p>Rachel: Yeah, so we're seeing across the continent, people are resisting this sort of chainsaw that's been taken to our laws, &nbsp;like permitting rules that protect our rights and our health and our ecosystems. &nbsp;So you can check out the Hands Off Nature petition. This shows already hundreds of thousands of people &nbsp;calling on the EU not to sacrifice public health to short-term private profit-making or to trade the protection of nature &nbsp;for greater exposure to harm. &nbsp;But I think it's important to say that for this to happen, we need to end EU decision-makers' cosy relationship with big polluters. &nbsp;As long as they're the ones whispering in policymakers' ears, we're not going to get a truly just transition to cleaner, safer jobs. &nbsp;So increasingly groups like fossil free politics are making their voices heard and you can join up with them &nbsp;and join in other fights to get big tech out of our politics and get toxic chemical lobbies away from influencing &nbsp;policymakers. Finally, I think if you're coming from a community that has had to always having to fight badly planned destructive or polluting new infrastructure, you need to take note of what's happening at the European level &nbsp;because without EU permitting rules, which are far from perfect, &nbsp;We also lose recourse, &nbsp;you lose that recourse to EU law and the courts when they're not followed. And that will make these fights harder and also more common. So that's why, yeah, we need to fight for these rules that actually do help to protect our rights and our environment and, &nbsp;you know, resist this really illogical idea that competitiveness for big business &nbsp;is a reason to destroy rights and protections that have been hard won over many decades, &nbsp;let alone the fact that cutting costs for companies. by wrecking people's health, livelihoods, poisoning water, soils, air, that puts far greater costs onto society, onto the public purse, and of course onto future generations. &nbsp;So I think &nbsp;the main things are &nbsp;get your voice heard, get informed, join up with these &nbsp;groups who are fighting the dominance of &nbsp;polluters' voices over politics and &nbsp;fighting this narrative that for the sake of competitiveness, we should just trample all over our rights. Yes, &nbsp;thank you. &nbsp;That was great.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Sure. And there are also coalitions like similar to the rules to protect that is operating at the EU level at Brussels level, but in the different member states. And I know that you were recently in Germany at the launch of one such coalition.</strong></p> <p>That's right. I think there and that's a very encouraging sign that we've seen coalitions in several countries in Austria, in Germany, in in France and elsewhere pop up um organizations that come together at the national level to work together against &nbsp;the deregulation agenda. And I think definitely that's the way forward. &nbsp;This &nbsp;is not something that &nbsp;organizations based in Brussels such as corporate Europe observatory can manage on our own. &nbsp;Definitely not. It is something that will require a major effort from lots of people across Europe. And one of the promising signs is these &nbsp;national coalitions &nbsp;that we see coming up. Yes. Thank you so much.</p> <p><strong>We have come to the end of this podcast. If you liked it make sure you also listen to the previous episode that our friends at Counter Balance where they discuss how public investment is fuelling the arms race. Till next time, beijinhos!</strong><br>&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">01.04.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/what-corporate-capture-looks" hreflang="en">This is what corporate capture looks like!</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">11.05.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/05/permission-pollute" hreflang="en">Permission to Pollute</a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Blog</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/blog/EU-watchdog-radio" hreflang="en">EU Watchdog Radio</a></div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Wed, 27 May 2026 13:45:00 +0000 Joana 2399 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/05/polluters-have-knives-out-again-forever-chemicals-ban <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">21.05.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/851" hreflang="en">Plastics</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The fluoropolymer industry is at it again. The industry’s most notable products are non-stick industrial coatings such as Teflon, made using forever chemicals (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: PFAS). But as the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) starts to wind up its <a href="https://echa.europa.eu/restrictions-under-consideration/-/substance-rev/72301/term">second public consultation</a> on the proposed EU PFAS ban, the fluoropolymer industry is once again mobilising its customers to criticise alternatives to their products.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>In January 2025 the <a href="https://foreverpollution.eu/lobbying/">Forever Lobbying</a> journalism project subjected the key arguments used by lobbyists in the plastics / fluoropolymer sector to a <a href="https://foreverpollution.eu/lobbying/the-stress-test-methodology/">“stress test”</a>. They <a href="https://foreverpollution.eu/lobbying/the-disinformation-campaign/">concluded</a> that “most arguments they have presented in the public decision-making process are misleading, fearmongering, exaggerated, or potentially dishonest.” The journalists further <a href="https://foreverpollution.eu/lobbying/the-disinformation-campaign/">concluded</a> that the plastics industry’s mantra that “there is no alternative” to fluoropolymers is part of a lobby strategy of “economic scaremongering” to avoid an EU ban on their substances.</p> <h3>Chemours</h3> <p>Now we can see that <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/the-chemours-company?rid=433904133145-65">Chemours</a>, the controversial US producer of fluoropolymers, which has been the subject of multiple PFAS-related <a href="https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/chemours">legal actions</a> in the US and most recently a new <a href="https://www.thegreenclaim.eu/cases/pfa">mass claim</a> by local residents living in the vicinity of its Dordrecht site in the Netherlands, is once again active, this time around the new ECHA consultation which closes on 25 May.</p> <p>As documented in Corporate Europe Observatory’s report <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/chemical-reaction">Chemical reaction</a>, during the first ECHA PFAS consultation in 2023 Chemours mobilised its supply chain to try to deluge the consultation with fluoropolymer-friendly input. Now in 2026 via webinars, and materials obtained by <a href="https://watershedinvestigations.com/">WATERSHED Investigations</a>, we can see that Chemours has been advising its business customers how to complete the second ECHA consultation, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-05/26-CHEMOURS-13-April_Webinar-SEAC-Navigation-slides-Final.pdf">including</a> to: “If warranted, explain the limitations of alternatives”.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-05/FireShot%20Webpage%20Capture%20160%20-%20%2726-CHEMOURS-13-April_Webinar-SEAC-Navigation-slides-Final.pdf%27%20-%20corporateeurope.org_.png?itok=DGDJy-y2" width="800" height="368" alt="Chemours presentation 13.4.2026" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Specifically a Chemours lobbyist verbally told its 13 April webinar that as part of the consultation they should, among others things:&nbsp;</p> <p><em>“… explain the limitations of alternatives, that is extremely important. Justify why you need specific intact PFAS and that why it cannot be replaced. That has to include a clear explanation of the performance required for your application and how and why the alternatives would fail. Is that because of durability, compliance of legislation for example in the chemical sector or defence sector, or the reliabilty of the application’s alternative uses. And then if the alternatives exist in theory, is it in theory, is it lab scale, is it scaled up already, or just niche contexts. And that’s also very important because there are a lot of rumours about the possibility of replacing fluoropolymers for so many applications, well let’s go into the details of what they are talking about. If it is just something that is in the state of R&amp;D then maybe it is not ready for larger scale uses that you might want to present.”</em></p> <p>ECHA is keen to receive more information on alternatives to PFAS across multiple sectors before it sends its final analysis to the Commission at the end of the year; it is deeply worrying to see vested interests encouraging others to dismiss PFAS-free alternatives, especially as <a href="https://chemsec.org/knowledge/beyond-pfas/">alternatives do exist</a>, but their producers can face numerous challenges.</p> <p>As an example, the <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/chemical-reaction">Chemical reaction</a> report exposed how, in the context of the first ECHA consultation in 2023, an intermediary representing an SME producing alternatives to PFAS in the area of batteries considered it:</p> <p>&nbsp;<em>“... especially hard for smaller, disruptive, actors to speak up in the context of the PFAS restriction due to the interests at stake for the other, often much larger, actors who thrive off the status-quo. As such, we have noted a significant amount of comments to ECHA’s ongoing consultation claiming there are no suitable alternatives for lithium-ion batteries, despite [the SME’s] technology being a suitable and available alternative”.&nbsp;</em></p> <h3>Plastics Europe</h3> <p>Meanwhile the main trade association for fluoropolymers, <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/plastics-europe?rid=454264611835-56">Plastics Europe’s Fluoropolymer Product Group</a> (FPG), of which Chemours is a member, uses its <a href="https://fluoropolymers.eu/eu-pfas-restriction/assessment-of-alternatives-to-fluoropolymers/">new study</a> to back its pre-existing demand for “a full exemption of fluoropolymers” from the proposed PFAS ban, which it says would be the “only&nbsp;viable&nbsp;and justified&nbsp;regulatory approach”.&nbsp;</p> <p>The FPG <a href="https://fluoropolymers.eu/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/20260413-FPG_Alternatives-Assessment_Final-Report-2.pdf">study</a> was written by consultancy firm <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/ramboll?rid=754826497445-23">Ramboll</a> and it looks at a handful of case studies of fluoropolymer use in transport, electronics, and semiconductor applications. Ramboll says: “… it is important to note that the findings from specific case studies cannot be reliably extrapolated to other uses within the same application area or sector, due to the unique performance requirements and contextual factors involved.” Nonetheless the FPG uses the study to <a href="https://fluoropolymers.eu/eu-pfas-restriction/assessment-of-alternatives-to-fluoropolymers/">justify</a> its position that “given the unique properties of fluoropolymers, there&nbsp;are&nbsp;no&nbsp;alternatives&nbsp;that&nbsp;meet&nbsp;the necessary technical&nbsp;criteria&nbsp;to substitute fluoropolymers”.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-05/Quote%20FPG%2019.5.2026.png?itok=0YwSf7jJ" width="800" height="151" alt="Quote from Plastics Europe’s Fluoropolymer Product Group website 19 May 2026" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>A screenshot from Plastics Europe’s Fluoropolymer Product Group website, dated 19 May 2026.</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Ramboll has previously <a href="https://echa.europa.eu/-/echa-manages-conflicts-of-interest-appropriately">supplied</a> technical input to ECHA on PFAS. Subsequent to a <a href="https://transparency.eu/european-chemicals-agency-tightens-conflict-of-interest-rules-following-civil-society-complaint/">complaint</a> by civil society groups which raised the risk of conflicts of interest when consultancies work for both commercial interests and regulators, ECHA <a href="https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/17207/pol-0027_prevention_and_management_of_potential_conflicts_of_interest_en.pdf/6fe1f1a0-d962-ed0d-6de7-fb56b93b7fb9?t=1726484001433">improved</a> its conflicts of interest policy towards external consultants late last year.</p> <h3>Knives out</h3> <p>Once again the fluoropolymer industry has its knives out for the proposed PFAS ban. The Commission is waiting for ECHA’s final opinion before it decides on how to proceed with a PFAS ban, but has already <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/forever-chemical-firms-continue-forever-eu-lobbying">signalled</a> that it is likely to bend for industry and propose a weaker ban than that originally proposed in 2023 by five national authorities, despite the <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/new-study-confirms-huge-and-growing-costs-pfas-pollution-2026-01-29_en">serious consequences</a> for people's health, the environment, and public budgets.&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.01.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/chemical-reaction" hreflang="en">Chemical reaction</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.01.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/forever-chemical-firms-continue-forever-eu-lobbying" hreflang="en">Forever-chemical firms continue forever EU lobbying</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">13.05.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/consumer-pfas-vs-universal-ban" hreflang="en">Persistent pollution</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Thu, 21 May 2026 06:00:00 +0000 Vicky Cann 2398 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/05/eu-deregulation-drive-hands-industry-permission-pollute <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> New report exposes how the EU is ripping up permitting rules and funding dirty infrastructure </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">12.05.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Brussels, 12 May 2026 -&nbsp;</strong>Just ahead of the informal meeting of EU energy ministers where the ongoing energy crisis will be a key topic, a new report by Corporate Europe Observatory reveals how the European Commission is taking a chainsaw to energy infrastructure permitting rules. This is part of a wider deregulatory push driven by some of Europe’s most polluting industries. Although the EU presents this agenda as the “simplification” of permitting laws, in practice, it risks eroding the hard-won social and environmental protections that underpin these rules.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>“The current energy crisis is finally pushing Europe away from its reliance on fossil fuels. But successful industry lobbying means measures intended to fast track renewables are now being used to build polluting infrastructure, threatening the health of workers and local communities. And no matter if it’s a&nbsp;wind farm or a data centre that’s going to be built, permitting rules should still protect the environment and allow communities a say in decision making”</em> says <strong>Pascoe Sabido, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner.</strong></p> <p>Since the second von der Leyen Commission took office, permitting rules have come under sustained attack from Big Tech, the fossil fuel industry, and mining lobby groups. And it’s paying off: just yesterday, the EU Council’s “simplification” working group discussed letting industry deliberately kill protected wildlife species when building new infrastructure. What’s more, under labels such as “strategic” or “overriding public interest”, harmful projects are increasingly able to side-step normal permitting procedures. But who decides what sort of projects enjoy the label?&nbsp;</p> <p><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/05/permission-pollute"><em>Permission to pollute</em></a>, Corporate Europe Observatory’s new report, exposes how major polluters are lobbying for easier access to permits – and public subsidies – for polluting infrastructure projects. The report reveals how the European Commission has actively invited industry players to shape its permitting deregulation agenda. Europe risks not only living with more pollution but paying polluters to create it.</p> <p>The report includes three case studies illustrating the potentially devastating impacts on people and the environment. In Sweden, Indigenous ways of life are being destroyed, homes lost, and water polluted in service of a new mining project. Across Europe, communities could be forced to accept new CO₂ pipelines that pose serious safety risks if they leak, while prolonging fossil fuel dependence. In Ireland, soaring electricity demand from new data centres is contributing to rising energy prices and blackout risks, while new fossil fuel plants are built to power them.</p> <p>Key findings include:</p> <p><strong>Industry demands embedded in new EU legislation:&nbsp;</strong>Measures proposed in ReSourceEU, the Environmental Omnibus, the Grids Package, and the Industrial Accelerator Act would fast-track projects, weaken or bypass environmental assessments, expand tacit approvals, and restrict access to justice. Strategic sectors and projects – including mining, fossil gas, CO₂ capture, transport and storage, hydrogen, and data centres – would be branded “public interest” and benefit from accelerated permitting. More cave-ins to industry pressure are expected in the upcoming Cloud and AI Development Act, and CO₂ transport infrastructure proposal.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Industry celebrates deregulation wins, but wants more:</strong> Oil and gas lobby group IOGP praised the Environmental Omnibus and Grids Package for making “real progress on long-standing asks from industry”. BusinessEurope members successfully pushed for exemptions from environmental impact assessments for hydrogen and CO₂ infrastructure projects in the Industrial Accelerator Act. IOGP and Euromines have formed an “Informal Coalition on Permitting” to campaign for a sweeping “permitting Omnibus” aimed at weakening multiple environmental protections at once.</p> <p><strong>Unprecedented industry influence over policymaking:&nbsp;</strong>Ursula von der Leyen sought deregulation tips directly from the <a name="__DdeLink__98_2870735348"></a>European Round Table for Industry, teamed-up with fossil fuel groups to run workshops on how to “streamline” permitting, and relied on new consultation processes – Implementation Dialogues and Reality Checks – heavily dominated by industry.</p> <p><strong>Public money backing polluting industries:</strong> At their request, the Commission is also supporting polluting industries financially through new “de-risking” measures, an Industrial Decarbonisation Bank, looser state aid rules, and other public funding mechanisms.</p> <p><strong>Rachel Tansey, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner</strong>, says: <a name="__DdeLink__169_179139601"></a><em>“It's time to end EU decision-makers’ cosy relationship with Big Polluters.&nbsp;Industry lobby groups have a long history of co-opting crises – and the energy crisis must not be used to justify trampling people’s rights and destroying biodiversity. Many of the infrastructure projects being fast-tracked and publicly funded, as a result of the EU ripping-up permitting rules, will actually increase fossil fuel dependence, at precisely the time we need to reduce it.”</em></p> <p>ENDS</p> <p><strong>For media inquiries, please contact</strong></p> <p>Rachel Tansey, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner</p> <p><a href="#" data-mail-to="enpury/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +44 7835 798782</p> <p>Pascoe Sabido, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner</p> <p><a href="#" data-mail-to="cnfpbr/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +44 7969 665189</p> <p>Marcella Via, Corporate Europe Observatory press officer</p> <p><a href="#" data-mail-to="zrqvn/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +32 489 622233</p> <p><strong>Notes to editor</strong></p> <p><a name="__DdeLink__214_1086635212"></a>You can read the full report&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/05/permission-pollute">here</a>&nbsp;</p> <p>You can find a summary of the case studies attached to this press release</p> <p>More details on the informal meeting of energy ministers&nbsp;<a href="https://cyprus-presidency.consilium.europa.eu/en/events/informal-meeting-of-energy-ministers/">here</a>, and on the Council’s ‘Simplification’ working group meeting&nbsp;<a href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/mpo/2026/5/antici-sub-gr-on-simplification-(365598)/">here</a> (and Poltico reporting on it&nbsp;<a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-countries-weigh-letting-industry-kill-more-wildlife/?utm_source=email&amp;utm_medium=alert&amp;utm_campaign=EU%20countries%20weigh%20letting%20industry%20kill%20more%20wildlife">here</a>)</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">11.05.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/05/permission-pollute" hreflang="en">Permission to Pollute</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Tue, 12 May 2026 05:00:00 +0000 Marcella Via 2392 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/05/permission-pollute <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> EU rips up permit rules and funds dirty infrastructure </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">11.05.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/gas-lobby" hreflang="en">Gas lobby</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/lobby-groups-tactics" hreflang="en">Lobby groups &amp; tactics</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Our new report, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-05/CEO%20Permission%20to%20pollute_WEB.pdf"><em>Permission to Pollute</em></a>, reveals how the European Commission is taking a chainsaw to permitting rules for energy and industrial infrastructure. This is part of a wider deregulatory push driven by some of Europe’s most polluting industries. Although the EU presents this agenda as the “simplification” of permitting laws, in practice, it risks eroding the hard-won social and environmental protections that underpin these rules.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>Download the full report </em><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-05/CEO%20Permission%20to%20pollute_WEB.pdf"><em>here</em></a></p> <p>Since European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, took up her second term in office, permitting rules have come under sustained attack from Big Tech, the fossil fuel industry, and mining lobby groups. What’s more, under labels such as “strategic” or “overriding public interest”, harmful projects are increasingly able to side-step normal permitting procedures. But who decides what sort of projects enjoy the label?</p> <p>Documents obtained by CEO expose how major polluters have lobbied for easier access to permits – and public subsidies – for polluting infrastructure projects. They reveal how the European Commission has actively invited industry players to shape its permitting deregulation agenda. Europe risks not only living with more pollution but paying polluters to create it.</p> <p>Some of the key industry demands being delivered include:&nbsp;</p> <ul> <li>fast-tracked permitting for industrial and energy infrastructure, side-lining democratic participation;&nbsp;</li> <li>simpler, quicker environmental assessments, meaning less protection;&nbsp;</li> <li>more dirty projects classed as ‘strategic’ or ‘public interest’ and therefore getting special treatment in permitting processes, elevated above environmental or social concerns;&nbsp;</li> <li>water protection and nature laws opened up to be weakened.</li> </ul> <p><em>Scroll down for the key findings</em></p> <p><a name="__DdeLink__189_179139601"></a></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The report includes <strong>three case studies</strong> illustrating the potentially devastating impacts on people and the environment.</p> <ul> <li>In Sweden, Indigenous ways of life are being destroyed, homes lost and water polluted in service of a new mining project.</li> <li>Across Europe, communities could be forced to accept new CO₂ pipelines that pose serious safety risks if they leak, while prolonging fossil fuel dependence.</li> <li>In Ireland, soaring electricity demand from new data centres is contributing to rising energy prices and blackout risks, while new fossil fuel plants are built to power them.</li> </ul> <p><em><strong>Read the case-studies in-full </strong></em><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-05/CEO%20Permission%20to%20pollute_WEB.pdf"><em><strong>here</strong></em></a><em><strong>, or read the summaries below</strong></em></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-05/Green%20light.png?itok=2O1jYNZp" width="800" height="450" alt="lots of polluting trucks with smoke coming out, and behind them are industry chimneys belching smoke" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2><strong>Key findings from the report include:</strong></h2> <p><strong>Industry demands embedded in new EU legislation: </strong>Measures proposed in ReSourceEU, the Environmental Omnibus, the Grids Package, and the Industrial Accelerator Act would fast-track projects, weaken or bypass environmental assessments, expand tacit approvals, and restrict access to justice. Strategic sectors and projects – including mining, fossil gas, CO₂ capture, transport and storage, hydrogen, and data centres – would be branded “public interest” and benefit from accelerated permitting. More cave-ins to industry pressure are expected in the upcoming Cloud and AI Development Act, and CO₂ transport infrastructure proposal.</p> <p><strong>Industry celebrates</strong> <strong>deregulation wins, but wants more:</strong> Oil and gas lobby group IOGP praised the Environmental Omnibus and Grids Package for making “real progress on long-standing asks from industry”. BusinessEurope members successfully pushed for exemptions from environmental impact assessments for hydrogen and CO₂ infrastructure projects in the Industrial Accelerator Act. IOGP and Euromines have formed an “Informal Coalition on Permitting” to campaign for a sweeping “permitting Omnibus” aimed at weakening multiple environmental protections at once.</p> <p><strong>Unprecedented industry influence over policymaking: </strong>Ursula von der Leyen sought deregulation tips directly from the European Round Table for Industry, teamed-up with fossil fuel groups to run workshops on how to “streamline” permitting, and relied on new consultation processes – Implementation Dialogues and Reality Checks – heavily dominated by industry.</p> <p><strong>Public money backing polluting industries:</strong> At their request, the Commission is also supporting polluting industries financially through new “de-risking” measures, an Industrial Decarbonisation Bank, looser state aid rules, and other public funding mechanisms.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-05/Lobbying%20permitting2.png?itok=4FlO8LWp" width="800" height="652" alt="A web showing how lobbyist demands make their way into permitting-related legislation and then harm people and the environment" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-05/Channels2.png?itok=-64Ud-YJ" width="800" height="521" alt="graphic showing the different channels of influence used by industry to influence EU decision making on permitting rules" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h4>&nbsp;</h4> <h4><em>The three case studies in ‘Permission to pollute’ reveal just a few of the potentially disastrous impacts of ripping up EU permitting rules for people and the environment:</em></h4> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2><em><strong>1. New mines in Northern Sweden</strong></em></h2> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-05/Case%20study_Mining.png?itok=Lh65uH7W" width="800" height="450" alt="Map of Europe highlighting Sweden and the mining town of Kiruna" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Destroying indigenous way of life: </strong>State-owned mining company LKAB’s new iron ore and rare earth metals mine, Per Geijer, threatens to cut off the last remaining seasonal migration of the local Indigenous Sámi reindeer herding community of Gabna. Lars-Marcus Kuhmunen, Chair of Gabna, explains: “Everything is founded around the reindeer herding. If that ceases to exist, the Sámi culture will also cease to exist.”</p> <p><strong>Labelled as Strategic:</strong> Per Geijer is one of 47 projects inside the EU labelled strategic under the Critical Raw Materials Act, which limits the permit-granting process to “not exceed 27 months”, curtailing environmental assessments and community consultation. LKAB wielded outsized influence over the process, meeting top-level Commission officials six times in the three months prior to the Commission granting Per Geijer strategic status.</p> <p><strong>LKAB taking the battle to the EU: </strong>LKAB’s recently-departed chief executive, Jan Moström, has also been President of powerful lobby group Euromines, which has ensured the Swedish mining industry’s deregulation agenda is promoted at the EU level, for example, by establishing the Informal Permitting Coalition alongside oil and gas lobby group IOGP.</p> <p><strong>Deregulating water: </strong>In December 2025 the EU announced it would reopen the Water Framework Directive to encourage more mining. The Commissioner responsible for the water law, Sweden’s Jessica Roswall, met with LKAB and Euromines on multiple occasions, and even visited Per Geijer with Moström on a study trip in June 2025, where challenges around permitting were stressed.</p> <p><strong>Challenge through the courts: </strong>Gabna is challenging Per Geijer in court, but they are not the only ones. Groups in Portugal are taking the Commission to the European Court of Justice over the Barroso lithium mine, which is also labelled a “Strategic Project”. Expect more resistance.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-05/renar.jpg?itok=21dJvbNe" width="800" height="533" alt="thousands of reindeer heading up a snowy hill" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>Photo credit: Pär Henrik Blind, Min Ođđa Giron</em></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2>&nbsp;</h2> <h2><em><strong>2. CO₂ pipelines across Europe</strong></em></h2> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-05/Case%20study_CO2%20pipelines.png?itok=KDdzQMUK" width="800" height="450" alt="map of planned CO2 pipelines across Europe" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>New fast-tracked pipelines potentially lethal: </strong>EU plans for CO₂ pipelines are being fast-tracked by permitting loopholes. But as accidents in Yazoo County, US, have shown, they pose a major health risk. Leaks can lead to asphyxiation, mass-hospitalisations and long-lasting health impacts. Given the much higher population density in Europe, a ruptured pipeline could even prove fatal.</p> <p><strong>Delays phase out of fossil fuels:</strong> The pipelines are used to justify continued use of oil and gas, with the (unrealistic) promise that emissions will be captured, transported and stored.</p> <p><strong>Italy and Germany have major plans: </strong>The EU is planning 19,000km of CO₂ pipelines by 2050, costing up to €23bn, including through some of its most densely populated areas. Germany and Italy have major plans, with their respective leaders, Mertz and Meloni, calling for permitting laws to be cut back. In both cases they are being met with major opposition.</p> <p><strong>Italy’s CO₂</strong> <strong>pipelines:</strong> Part of the controversial Ravenna carbon capture and storage project and backed by gas giants Eni and Snam, CO₂ pipelines are planned just metres from residential housing. A 100 km CO₂ pipeline is planned through areas with high risk of earthquakes and flooding, as well as sites of high biodiversity and important habitats protected by European law Natura 2000. It is being fast-tracked and considered of overriding public interest thanks to its inclusion on the EU list of Projects of Common Interest.</p> <p><strong>Industry got what it wanted: </strong>The European Round Table for Industry (ERT) and BusinessEurope both pushed for permitting loopholes in relation to CO₂ infrastucture. The ERT also pushed for a “CO₂ infrastructure backbone” of pipelines across Europe, which it will likely get in the upcoming CO₂ infrastructure and markets law, also pushed for by the likes of oil and gas group IOGP.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-05/CO2%20pipelines%20population%20density.png?itok=Dpd5AyxZ" width="800" height="450" alt="visual representation of greater density of European populations compared to Yazoo county, US, where CO2 pipeline ruptured" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2>&nbsp;</h2> <h2><em><strong>3. Data Centres in Ireland</strong></em></h2> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-05/Case%20study_Data%20centres.png?itok=d_Mrbkwd" width="800" height="450" alt="Map of Ireland showing how many data centres are around Dublin" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Big expansion plans:</strong> The Commission’s plan – shaped by Big Tech – is to triple the number of data centres in Europe within five to seven years. This will mean increased emissions, water scarcity and higher energy bills, while also providing a lifeline to the fossil fuel industry, as new gas infrastructure is built to power them. Due to the large presence of Big Tech companies in Ireland, it is on the frontline in Europe of the exponential growth of these “AI Factories”.</p> <p><strong>Households bills subsidise AI Factories: </strong>Ireland has the second highest household electricity prices in Europe, but data centre operators are only paying half what households do, and this inequality is set to get worse. While household bills are expected to rise by another 8-21 per cent in the next five years, data centres will see their prices drop by 14 per cent.</p> <p><strong>Large electricity demand leading to fossil fuels: </strong>Large campuses combining dozens of data centres have been built on the outskirts of Dublin, consuming a staggering 50 per cent of the city’s electricity demand. Due to electricity shortages, these campuses are increasingly set to be powered by fossil fuels, such as Microsoft’s Grange Castle site.</p> <p><strong>Irish government backing Big Tech: </strong>Already in 2017, the Irish Government tried to bypass local authority approval by proposing to label data centres as ‘strategic’ infrastructure, which would have limited the scope for appeals and accelerated permitting. It is also investing heavily in new LNG infrastructure to meet the increasing electricity demand, torpedoing the country’s climate goals.</p> <p><strong>Big Tech lobbying successful in Ireland:</strong> Big Tech has already overturned a de facto moratorium on new data centres in Dublin, introduced by the Irish energy regulator, and has since seen a data centre-friendly policy introduced by the Irish government, called LEAP.</p> <p><strong>Big Tech targets EU laws:</strong> Newly approved data centre plans may fail to comply with multiple EU laws that are part of its permitting system, which is why they are now being targeted by Big Tech lobbying. But rather than put up a fight, the EU has rolled out the red carpet, with tech industry groups like Digital Europe and CCIA invited to a special stakeholder event on the Environmental Omnibus, which subsequently included speeded up environmental assessments.</p> <p><strong>Big Tech targets permitting:</strong> Lobbying documents show Big Tech wants to speed up the permitting process, minimise climate and environmental obligations, and weaken the ability of local communities to oppose their plans. Google wants the EU Commission to limit peoples’ ability to object against data centre permits to only those living within a 50m radius.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-05/data%20centre%201.jpg?itok=rMnVFY2I" width="800" height="450" alt="Inside a data centre rows of computer terminals are illumated under dark blue lighting" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>Read the full case studies and much more in our latest report ‘</em><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-05/CEO%20Permission%20to%20pollute_WEB.pdf"><em>Permission to pollute: EU rips up permit rules and funds dirty infrastructure</em></a><em>’.</em></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">08.06.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch" hreflang="en">Deregulation Watch</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">01.04.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/what-corporate-capture-looks" hreflang="en">This is what corporate capture looks like!</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">12.05.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/05/eu-deregulation-drive-hands-industry-permission-pollute" hreflang="en">EU deregulation drive hands industry permission to pollute </a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="CEO - Permission to pollute_web.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-05/CEO%20Permission%20to%20pollute_WEB.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CEO - Permission to pollute_web.pdf</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Mon, 11 May 2026 11:56:00 +0000 Pascoe Sabido 2391 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/take-action-say-no-deregulation-gmo-food <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Protect food and farming from corporate control </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">23.04.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The European Union is planning a major hand-out to big corporations like Bayer and BASF, that aim to control the food chain even further. What do they intend to do? Scrapping safety and transparency rules for risky new GMOs, and let corporations profit from patented GM crops.&nbsp;</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Genetically modified organisms in my food, on the fields?</strong> Today, EU GMO regulations ensure that all genetically modified organisms are assessed for risks, are labelled, and traceable. Consumers, farmers, and breeders can rely on this to make informed choices about what they eat and grow.</p> <p><strong>This right to transparency and freedom of choice is now under threat. </strong>The European Union is planning a major carve-out from its GMO laws. Most plants engineered using new GM techniques – such as the “gene scissors” CRISPR/Cas – would then be marketed without proper labelling, traceability, or prior risk assessment.</p> <p><strong>New GM crops are always patented</strong>, and this deregulation is likely to increase the concentration of the seed market into the hands of just a few corporations, harming the interests of small- and medium-sized breeders, farmers and consumers.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Negotiators of the EU institutions have agreed</strong> on this massive weakening of EU GMO law. In December 2025, EU Member States informally endorsed the agreement.</p> <p><strong>However, the final decision lies with the European Parliament</strong>. Will it agree to this sweeping deregulation? In 2024, Parliament had called for mandatory labelling and traceability for all GMO products and voted in favour of a ban on patented seeds.</p> <p>Let's call on Members of the European Parliament to safeguard GMO-free farming and the labelling of GMO foods, and to stand up against patented crops.&nbsp;</p> <h2 id="strong-strong-take-action-now-strong-strong"><strong>Take action now!</strong></h2> <p><strong>MEPs must not approve the December agreement</strong> without substantial improvements. Please use our email tool to send this demand directly to the parliamentarians.</p> <p>The tool will remain active until the <strong>plenary vote in May</strong>. Just select the country and the MEPs, and send your message! (Please note that the system will only let you send a message once).</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><script src="https://widget.proca.app/d/gmofree_demeter_2026/ceo" async></script></div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Thu, 23 Apr 2026 17:17:00 +0000 Nina Holland 2315 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/correctiv-pact-chemical-industry <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">20.04.2026</div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-author field--type-text field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Annika Joeres and Gesa Steeger</p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>CORRECTIV recently </em>published a groundbreaking article shedding light on the reason why the interests of big polluters keep being prioritised over the common interest: our health, right to clean water and food, our environment. The article (original <a href="https://correctiv.org/aktuelles/lobbyismus/2026/02/25/der-pakt-mit-der-chemiebranche/">in German here</a>) was written by Annika Joeres and Gesa Steeger and was published on 25 February 2026. In the article, a high-ranking employee of a German chemical company says that there is a tacit pact between chemical companies and German and EU authorities. The insider confirms that the health of the population is "hardly ever discussed" in high-level meetings. Meanwhile, thousands of unknown industrial chemicals are polluting the Rhine and groundwater. This begs the question: why does the chemical industry even have access to decision makers in the first place, given its dark lobby track record?</p> <p><em>CORRECTIV is a media house oriented towards the public good. As an award-winning non-profit newsroom, we shine a spotlight on power and injustices, expose disinformation, and provide arguments and methods for all those who want to participate in shaping their environment.</em></p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Tens of thousands of unknown, sometimes toxic, chemicals are floating in the Rhine. Why is industry allowed to discharge them unhindered? A top manager of a major corporation reveals how industry controls politicians.</strong></p> <p>By Annika Joeres and Gesa Steeger (original article in German <a href="https://correctiv.org/aktuelles/lobbyismus/2026/02/25/der-pakt-mit-der-chemiebranche/">here</a>).&nbsp;</p> <p>There is a tacit pact between chemical companies and the German and European governments, says a high-ranking employee of a chemical company near Cologne. The man in his mid-forties, who worked for many years in the European Parliament, describes the pact as follows: Brussels MEPs and the Commission know perfectly well that many chemicals from German companies – in plastic products, varnishes, skin creams, cleaning agents, and plasticizers – are harmful to health. "But all those responsible accept this in order to secure Germany and the European Union (EU) as leading chemical production locations." Therefore, the EU – more and more decisively each year – prioritizes the interests of industry: fewer regulations, fewer controls, no new limits. The health of the population? Secondary. It is "hardly ever discussed" at high-level meetings.</p> <p>CORRECTIV has uncovered numerous pieces of evidence for this "pact" in documents, conversations, and draft legislation. Earlier this month, CORRECTIV reported that thousands of unknown industrial substances are polluting the Rhine and groundwater. Of the approximately 100,000 substances used in the EU, only about 500 have been sufficiently researched. The rest are allowed to flow into the Rhine almost unchecked – and end up in the drinking water of millions of people. Experts are alarmed and have long been urging legal measures to combat the flood of unknown and ever-evolving chemicals. So far, such measures are lacking.</p> <p><em>Chemicals used in the EU (~100,000)&nbsp;</em></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-04/chemicals.png?itok=1dlQ-ygS" width="800" height="598" alt="chemicals not tested" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>In grey: Extensively studied (~500) – in red: Little to no research (~99,500)&nbsp;</em></p> <p><em>Source: European Environment Agency&nbsp;</em></p> <p><strong>Scientists: Chemicals are the greatest danger to humanity</strong></p> <p>Chemicals are considered by international scientists to be the greatest threat to humanity. Yet the EU Commission is ignoring these substances: According to the European Environment Agency, unknown substances do not have to be recorded in any database. However, in recent years, many previously unresearched substances have alarmed doctors, experts, and the public, such as PFAS. Barely noticed 20 years ago, this chemical is now considered carcinogenic and can also impair metabolism, hormone balance, reproduction, and the immune system. A limit has been in place since this year – but only for drinking water.</p> <p>The EU is very well aware of the dangers of chemicals: almost every second cancer case It is preventable and is promoted by chemicals such as pesticides, writes the Directorate-General for the Environment of the European Commission in Brussels. According to the EU's "Zero Pollution Plan," pollution causes one in eight deaths. But the zero-pollution plan is stalled. So too is a reform of the European chemicals regulation REACH, once a globally acclaimed achievement: it has been in force since 2007 – with thousands of new chemicals introduced every year, it is long outdated. The reform has been postponed repeatedly for years, and many experts now believe it will never happen. This is primarily because Cefic, the powerful lobby group for the European chemical industry, no longer supports the reform. Even before the first version of REACH was published, its then-head said it would "deindustrialize Europe." That was in 2003.</p> <p><strong>"I wouldn't even call it lobbying anymore. More like: giving orders"</strong></p> <p>“Cefic is financially strong and very influential,” says the insider from the Rhineland-based chemical company. Strategic meetings with dozens of industry representatives take place almost daily. Last year alone, representatives of the association met with high-ranking members of the European Commission 264 times. The association is located in a glass skyscraper near the European Parliament. According to the organization Lobbycontrol, its budget exceeds ten million euros annually. "The access is direct and uncomplicated – I wouldn't even call it lobbying anymore. It seems more like: industry is giving orders to politicians," says the insider. There's been a huge step backwards; the supposed rescue of industry takes precedence over everything else.</p> <p>Top politicians are now openly courting the chemical industry. "Give us your Ten Commandments," Belgium's conservative Prime Minister Bart De Wever recently demanded of the industry's CEOs. When Cefic invited them to a high-level meeting in Antwerp at the beginning of February, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz attended. "The industry itself was surprised by the high-ranking state guests and the many promises. A few years ago, that would have been unthinkable," said the insider. In response to a CORRECTIV inquiry, Cefic stated that its task is to provide politicians with "technical and practical information." The aim is to explain how the industry can remain in Europe while simultaneously protecting public health in a "realistic way."</p> <p>Chancellor Merz also advocated for deregulation in Antwerp – including fewer regulations for chemicals. The Christian Democrats pent many years of his life as a lawyer for DAX-listed companies and previously even worked directly for the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI). Research by CORRECTIV shows that Merz acted as a lawyer for BASF, Europe's largest chemical company, at least three times. The call for a "moratorium on burdens" for companies, the fight against the "bureaucratic monster," and a reduction in "reporting requirements" for businesses – Merz and his former employer, the chemical industry, agree remarkably often and verbatim. In Antwerp, Merz promised: "We must deregulate every sector." This means fewer regulations; it would also apply to wastewater and unknown pollutants. In response to a CORRECTIV inquiry, the VCI stated that it does not, as a matter of principle, comment on the extent to which individual political decision-makers support its positions.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-04/Merz.png?itok=zyH1VH2P" width="800" height="1169" alt="Merz" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>(Merz's ties to BASF, Supervisory Board, former member of the Executive Board, speaker, Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Senior consultant at; Blackrock, the world's largest wealth management firm, Mayer Brown, international business law firm, BASF, the world's largest chemical company, United Europe, Industry Association, VCI, German Chemical Industry Association. Source: Correctiv)</em></p> <p><strong>What would happen if health came&nbsp;</strong>fi<strong>rst?</strong></p> <p>Environmental organizations and health initiatives, on the other hand, have less power in Brussels. For example, when Commission President von der Leyen convened a strategy meeting on the future of European chemicals policy in May 2025, only three representatives from civil society sat opposite 15 industry representatives. Yet, scientifically, it is clear what needs to happen: companies must first prove — as with pharmaceuticals — that their micropollutants, including those previously unknown, are not dangerous to humans, animals, or plants. Only then should they be allowed to use them. "We need to regulate entire groups of substances — for example, bisphenol A was banned in baby products, but its alternatives have similar or even stronger effects," says Ana Zenclussen, an environmental immunologist from Leipzig.</p> <p>Green MEP Jutta Paulus, a trained pharmacist and former head of a pollutant analysis laboratory, wants to go even further. She demands a ban on all substances in a group that are potentially harmful to health, for example, carcinogenic. But that is currently not feasible: "In Brussels, there is an unholy alliance of conservatives and right-wing extremists that is sacrificing health protection to profit interests,” Paulus criticizes.</p> <p>The chemical industry is resisting stricter regulations – so far successfully. A reversal of the burden of proof would "create considerable uncertainty for research, development, and production," says the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI). The European chemical industry association Cefic rejects such a regulation in almost identical terms. An insider from a chemical company in the Rhineland puts it more drastically: "If health were the top priority, some companies would face an existential crisis." A ban on all demonstrably dangerous substances like BPA would force many products off the market. Products that many consumers unknowingly use: The "pact" is in place without the public being aware of it.</p> <p><strong>Potential Harmful Substances in Everyday Products</strong></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-04/Table%20products%20effects.png?itok=VvXMk04k" width="800" height="763" alt="table effects" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The insider from the chemical industry has long observed how the Brussels administration appoints people with close ties to the industry. "For decades, the conservative EPP group has dominated Parliament and the Commission – and has placed its people there who are closely connected to the chemical industry."</p> <p>This can be substantiated. The Policy Department is supposed to produce independent reports to inform the Commission. In one of its most recent reports, it emphasizes that the controversial perpetual chemicals PFAS are very important for European industry and that a ban would result in significant economic losses. This report was sharply criticized for its flawed content by the international expert committee on PFAS, the Global PFAS Science Panel.</p> <p>The criticized document was published by a former staffer of CDU member of parliament Hildegard Bentele, who in turn sits on the European Committee for Industrial Research (ITRE), which had requested the report. Bentele is known for opposing restrictions on the chemical industry. Like the chemical industry association, she also speaks of "bureaucratic burnout." In response to an inquiry from CORRECTIV, Bentele writes that the accusation that she prioritizes industry interests over public health has not yet been leveled against her. Bentele emphasizes that she considers the issues of water supply, water management, water quality, and water quantity to be very important and is actively involved in discussion on these topics.</p> <p><strong>The Netherlands is setting an example and protecting its population</strong></p> <p>It is possible to demand at least minimal transparency without bankrupting the corporations. The Netherlands has required its largest chemical park, Chemelot, to identify all individual substances discharged into its wastewater. In fact, the neighboring country is already suffering from the wastewater of German industry. The Rhine water requires increasingly complex purification processes before it can be used as drinking water.</p> <p>Even existing laws are apparently not being applied sufficiently. "We have found that Germany is applying its own interpretation of the European Industrial Emissions Directive," Gerard Stroomberg, director of RIWA-Rijn, the association of Dutch water suppliers, told CORRECTIV.</p> <p>This interpretation primarily benefits the German chemical industry. Stroomberg cites the persistent chemical PFAS as an example. In Germany, there are currently no legally binding wastewater limits for these substances; only guideline values exist. The Cologne district government explains on its website: "Due to a lack of legal framework, reduction measures can currently only be implemented through dialogue with the operators." In short, water suppliers can only politely request that industry discharge less hazardous substances – they cannot force them to do so.</p> <p><strong>EU Commission criticizes Germany</strong></p> <p>This already drew criticism during the last legislative period. In a report from February 2025, the EU Commission states that it remains unclear whether Germany is working to reduce pollution. It calls on the German government to establish binding emission limits for PFAS-containing wastewater discharged into the Rhine.</p> <p>The pact with the chemical industry could prove costly for all Europeans – both financially and in terms of their health. The costs of hospital stays, medications, and doctor visits due to phthalates, bisphenols, pesticides, and PFAS could reach up to 2.2 trillion US dollars. The amount is astronomical. And that doesn't even take into account the effects of unknown pollutants.</p> <p><em>Research: Annika Joeres, Gesa Steeger, Finn Schöneck&nbsp;</em><br><em>Graphics: Carolin Lewandowska</em><br><em>Fact-checking and editing: Katarina Huth</em></p> <p>This article is part of a series on chemical pollution by <em>CORRECTIV</em> in 2026. Also see:</p> <p><a href="https://correctiv.org/aktuelles/kampf-um-wasser/2026/02/03/wie-die-industrie-den-rhein-mit-unbekannten-stoffen-verschmutzt/">Das unsichtbare Gift im Rhein</a> - 3 February 2026</p> <p><a href="https://correctiv.org/aktuelles/kampf-um-wasser/2026/02/13/chemiecocktail-aus-dem-rhein-koennte-in-bergbauseen-landen/">Chemiecocktail aus dem Rhein könnte in Bergbauseen landen</a> - 13 February 2026</p> <p><a href="https://correctiv.org/aktuelles/wirtschaft/2026/04/14/in-der-schoenheitsfalle-giftige-kosmetik/">In der Schönheitsfalle: Giftige Kosmetik</a> - 14 April 2026</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">15.03.2023</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/chemical-romance-politicians-basf" hreflang="en">Chemical romance: how politicians fell for BASF</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">11.02.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/reaching-out" hreflang="en">REACHing out</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">19.02.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/02/crying-wolf" hreflang="en">Crying wolf pays off for chemicals industry</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Mon, 20 Apr 2026 07:01:00 +0000 Nina Holland 2390 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/copy-paste-govern <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Microsoft ghostwrote EU policy that keeps data centres' energy use secret </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">15.04.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/digital" hreflang="en">Tech</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The EU Commission’s policy on data centres keeps information on individual centres' energy and water use under wraps. Research by Corporate and Europe Observatory and AlgorithmWatch, and published by Investigate Europe and media across Europe, reveals the Commission copied and pasted an amendment suggested by Microsoft and the lobby group Digital Europe. The aim? In the face of growing resistance, to prevent NGOs from obtaining information on energy-hungry data centres.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Since the AI Action Summit in Paris in February 2025 ­– attended by dozens of government leaders and business executives – the European Commission is increasingly focusing on ‘winning the global AI race’. Soon after the summit, it launched its <a href="https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ai-continent-action-plan">AI Continent Action Plan</a> which aims to triple Europe’s data centre capacity&nbsp;by 2030.</p> <p>Fuelled by the AI boom, the Commission <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/dec/10/eu-proposes-exempting-ai-gigafactories-from-environmental-assessments">plans to relax permitting rules</a> to make it easier for tech companies to build data centres, but their rapid expansion is already putting <a href="https://algorithmwatch.org/en/ireland-data-center-crisis-eu-sovereignty/">immense</a> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/09/big-tech-datacentres-water">pressure</a> on energy and water supplies and electricity grids, and <a href="https://ecostandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Data-centres-report.pdf">threatens the EU’s climate goals.</a></p> <p>For example in the Dublin area, data centres already consume an extraordinary <a href="https://archive.is/20250219024847/https:/www.independent.ie/news/data-centres-now-using-half-of-all-electricity-in-dublin-and-meath/a1415943438.html">50 per cent of the electricity supply</a>, putting immense pressure on prices and grids for the rest of society. The energy demands are so high that there are now long waiting times for connection to the grid, so big tech data centres are increasingly being powered by on-site fossil gas generators. With Big Tech companies pouring hundreds of billions of euros into AI data centres, the International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that data centre electricity consumption will grow by <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai/energy-demand-from-ai">15 per cent per year</a> — more than four times faster than consumption from other sectors.</p> <p>The EU is trying to address this rising energy demand through the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED), which obliges tech companies to transparency on the power demand of data centres. However, new research by Corporate Europe Observatory and AlgorithmWatch shows that Microsoft played a key role in drafting a crucial article that largely makes this obligation an empty shell.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Data centres’ energy use? Not your business</strong></p> <p>The Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) ­– passed in 2023 as part of the Green Deal – aims to improve energy efficiency across the EU. While the directive covers energy use across policy areas, <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32023L1791">Article 12</a> relates specifically to data centres. It aims to create minimum transparency requirements regarding energy consumption, water usage, and the use of renewable energy. In the face of <a href="https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2026/02/18/a-milestone-achievement-in-our-journey-to-carbon-negative/">greenwashing</a> from the tech industry, increased transparency could help to dispel <a href="https://www.desmog.com/2025/04/22/ai-energy-demand-can-keep-fossil-fuels-alive-tech-backers-promise-worlds-two-biggest-oil-producers/">baseless claims</a> made by companies and document the local impact of the global AI boom.</p> <p>But while the Energy Efficiency Directive makes it clear that transparency is the standard, it leaves a crucial loophole by exempting information that is covered by trade and business secrets. A loophole that Big Tech was able to exploit.</p> <p>In 2024 the EU Commission began drafting a '<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202401364">Delegated Act on the rating scheme for data centres</a>' to implement Article 12 of the Energy Efficiency Directive. <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13818-Data-centres-in-Europe-reporting-scheme/F3451125_en">Microsoft</a> and the lobby organisation <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13818-Data-centres-in-Europe-reporting-scheme/F3451112_en">DigitalEurope</a> submitted position papers to the Commission. In doing so, they closely coordinated with each other to lobby for the transparency requirements set out in the EED to be significantly weakened, and for the scope of trade and business secrets to be broadened to cover all data on individual data centres. Information was only to be made available at an aggregate level. In effect, this makes it impossible to know how much energy a specific data centre would use, making it significantly harder to document the real-world consequences of building more data centres and their environmental impact.</p> <p>It's important to note that the vast energy requirements of data centres are creating political backlash. Resistance campaigns are increasing, from locals objecting to skyrocketing electricity bills in <a href="https://www.friendsoftheearth.ie/news/data-centre-industry-in-denial-about-their-climate-impacts/">Ireland</a>, to communities facing water scarcity in <a href="https://tunubesecamirio.com/">Spain</a>. In the United States, grassroots groups have substantially slowed down the data centre rush. According to one <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/26/business/economy/ai-data-centers-construction-local-opposition.html">estimate</a>, at least $156 billion across 48 projects were blocked or stalled in 2025. While Europe is still in the early stages of the data centre build out, Big Tech firms – who have staked billions on AI – have a key interest in creating roadblocks for this kind of growing opposition.</p> <p>With this in mind, the reasons stated by Microsoft and DigitalEurope for blocking information on data centre energy usage are deeply troubling. Microsoft warned the Commission in its <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13818-Data-centres-in-Europe-reporting-scheme/F3451125_en">submission</a> that raw data on individual data centres could be released in response to access-to-information requests from NGOs, including those relating to the energy use of data centres.</p> <p>For instance, DigitalEurope <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13818-Data-centres-in-Europe-reporting-scheme/F3451125_en">writes</a> that “storing this data within the Commission’s database raises concerns about potential reactive data publication in response to access requests from competitors and NGOs under existing transparency frameworks”.</p> <p>Microsoft pushed the Commission to go even further by restricting access not just to EU-level information, but also by making it impossible to access this data at member state level. In its <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13818-Data-centres-in-Europe-reporting-scheme/F3451125_en">submission</a>, DigitalEurope adds that confidentiality requirements in the Energy Efficiency Directive are left unclear, and that the Delegated Act should ensure that information about specific metrics is “protected” from potential disclosure.</p> <p>While it is unsurprising that Big Tech companies are uneasy with the prospect of having to reveal data centres’ staggering water usage and energy consumption, the extent to which the Commission subsequently bought into these arguments is shocking.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Microsoft, the EU Commission’s ghost-writer</strong></p> <p>Both Microsoft and DigitalEurope proposed identical amendments to the Commission regarding changes to the Delegated Act, with the aim of classifying all information on individual data centres as confidential and preventing its disclosure, even when requested under the EU’s Access to Documents Regulation or the Aarhus Convention, which guarantees access to environmental data.</p> <p>Alarmingly, the Commission simply copied and pasted these amendments into the Delegated Act. Recital 12 and Article 5.5 are essentially plagiarised from Big Tech lobbying documents – a particularly egregious and shocking example of corporate influence.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-04/Copied%20pasted%20article.png?itok=KbGSdstt" width="800" height="450" alt="Image showing the copied and pasted article from the Microsoft lobby paper" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Although a Delegated Act is not supposed to contradict the legislation it implements, this appears to be the case in this situation. While the Energy Efficiency Directive aims to make all information on data centres publicly available if it is larger than 500 kW, <em>unless</em> specific information falls under trade, business secrets, or confidentiality, the Delegated Act keeps <em>all</em> information on the key performance indicators of individual data centres under wraps.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-04/Copied%20and%20pasted%20recital.png?itok=HPlNs9Wx" width="800" height="450" alt="Image showing the copied and pasted recital from a Microsoft lobby paper" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>In April 2026, the Commission <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/16035-Energy-efficiency-rating-scheme-for-data-centres-in-Europe_en">drafted a new Delegated Act</a> to further implement rules on data centres and asked for feedback from stakeholders. However, in the draft, the Microsoft amendment is largely retained, which would furhter entrench secrecy in the EU’s legal framework on data centres.</p> <p>Problematically, Big Tech firms are also capitalising on their win at the EU level to call for diminished transparency within member states, too. In Germany, <a href="https://www.lobbycontrol.de/lobbyismus-und-klima/energieeffizienzgesetz-auffaellige-parallelen-zu-lobby-papieren-von-big-tech-124879/">research</a> from LobbyControl and Campact shows that <a href="https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/informationen-und-hilfe/hinweise-zum-urheberrecht?documentUrl=/media/c8/55/506728/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2503130016.pdf">Microsoft</a>, <a href="https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/inhalte-der-interessenvertretung/stellungnahmengutachtensuche/SG2503310321">Google</a>, <a href="https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/inhalte-der-interessenvertretung/regelungsvorhabensuche/RV0008558/164441">Amazon</a> and the German digital lobby organisation <a href="https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/inhalte-der-interessenvertretung/stellungnahmengutachtensuche/SG2507100026">Bitkom</a> (whose EU lobby office is located in the same building as DigitalEurope), have been lobbying to classify information on individual data centres as a business secret by making explicit reference to “harmonisation” with the EU legislative framework.</p> <p>As Big Tech companies are increasing their spending on lobbying and marketing in the face of mounting anger and resistance in opposition to the social and environmental costs of the AI boom, demands for transparency are multiplying. For instance, in the USA Democratic senators are <a href="https://archive.is/20260326121207/https:/www.wired.com/story/senators-demand-to-know-how-much-energy-data-centers-use/">demanding</a> for electricity disclosures of data centres. More recently, <a href="https://archive.ph/3HkzO#selection-1480.0-1480.1">dozens of investors</a> have called for site-level data on water and energy use.</p> <p>The EU Commission, however, has granted Big Tech an early win: crucial information on individual data centres’ energy use, and their environmental and climate impact will be kept secret – despite the underlying directive explicitly calling for their publication. As the Commission is set to put the new ‘updated’ Delegated Act in force soon, the conclusion should be clear: the Commission has to redo its homework and delete the copy-pasted Microsoft amendment.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-04/bean%20microsoft.png?itok=gj43ysZL" width="800" height="450" alt="Meme using a scene from Mr. Bean sitting in an exam, copying from the student next to him. The student writing is labeled 'MICROSOFT' and Mr. Bean is labeled 'THE EU'" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">29.10.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/big-tech-lobby-budgets-hit-record-levels" hreflang="en">Big Tech lobby budgets hit record levels</a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="DigitalEurope position paper delegated act.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/DigitalEurope%20position%20paper%20delegated%20act.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DigitalEurope position paper delegated act.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Microsoft position paper delegated act.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/Microsoft%20position%20paper%20delegated%20act.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Microsoft position paper delegated act.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Delegated Act on a rating scheme for data centres.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/Delegated%20Act%20on%20a%20rating%20scheme%20for%20data%20centres.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Delegated Act on a rating scheme for data centres.pdf</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Wed, 15 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0000 Bram Vranken 2389 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/free-lobby-tour-eus-deregulation-frenzy <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Join us for a free lobby tour of Brussels on 23rd April and 28th May at 5pm </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.04.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The European Commission’s deregulation frenzy means attacks on labour rights, climate policies, nature protection, public health, among others. If you want to know more, join us on a <strong>free lobby tour of Brussels on 23rd April and 28th May at 5pm</strong>!</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The European Commission’s deregulation frenzy means attacks on labour rights, climate policies, nature protection, public health, among others. If you want to know more, join us on a <strong>free lobby tour of Brussels on 23rd April and 28th May at 5pm</strong>!</p> <p>We will explain the basic scheme behind this wave of destruction, the lobbying happening behind the scenes, what consequences it can have and how we can fight it.&nbsp;<br><br>Sign in at: <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=10887&amp;qid=1802608">ceo@corporateeurope.org</a> (until the day before at 5pm)</p> <p>Duration of the tour: 1.5 hours</p> <p>Since 1997 we at Corporate Europe Observatory have investigated, revealed and campaigned on the massive power enjoyed by big business lobbyists in the EU. In this lobby tour, we will address case-studies showing how corporate capture has stood in the way of the public good and has influenced and even steered decision-making processes at the European-level, on the topic of deregulation. We will visit <em>in loco</em> the lobby of the offices of these ‘barons’ to the EU bubble and maybe if we’re luck we may even spot some of them!</p> <p>Please note that CEO lobby tours are for free. <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/support-ceo">Donations to support our work</a> are very welcome.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gvBpWQhun04?si=ya0TnIDwiePFUCDr" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p></div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Tue, 14 Apr 2026 11:01:00 +0000 Joana 2388 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/ep-vote-deregulate-new-gmos-ngts <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Biotech lobby pushes false solutions for patent problem </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.04.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Brussels, 14 April 2026</strong> - On 18 May the European Parliament is expected to vote on a new law that would exempt food plants obtained from new genetic engineering techniques (NGTs) from existing GMO rules. The deregulation of NGTs will undermine food safety standards and consumers' right to choose, and will also likely lead to further concentration in the seed sector through the patenting of food crops.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>A <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/biotech-lobby-groups-are-set-trap-farmers-and-breeders-patent-minefield"><strong>new article</strong></a><strong> by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and GMWatch</strong> shows that industry lobby groups try to allay concerns about the impact of patented crops with very shallow, if not misleading arguments. A new survey shows that by far <strong>most EU citizens oppose patents</strong> on plants and animals.</p> <p>Lobby documents obtained from the European Commission <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/biotech-lobby-groups-are-set-trap-farmers-and-breeders-patent-minefield">show that</a>:</p> <ul> <li>Industry lobby groups Euroseeds and CropLife Europe, representing biotech multinationals like Bayer and Syngenta, <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/17_39140_Intellectual_property_protection_in_the_context_of_the_legislative__proposal_for_a_regulation_for_plants_obtained_by_certain_New_Genomic__Techniques_-_Attachment_to_doc_16.pdf">underplay the problems</a> linked to patents and propose inadequate ‘solutions’. For instance, the voluntary licensing platforms industry has set up do not provide a solution to increased dependence for small- and medium-sized breeding companies, nor to increased concentration in the seed sector.&nbsp;<br><br>&nbsp;</li> <li>Farm lobby Copa-Cogeca <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/14%20Letter%20from%20Copa%20Cogeca%20on%20new%20genomic%20techniques%20NGTs%20and%20patent%20protection.pdf">issued strong warnings against patents</a>, but later went silent on the issue. Other farm groups like Deutsche Bauern Verband and ECVC remain <a href="https://www.eurovia.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025-08-Patents-on-GMOs-NGTs-ECVC-Briefing-final-version-EN-.pdf">vocal</a> about their <a href="https://www.bauernverband.de/fileadmin/user_upload/dbv/pressemitteilungen/2025/KW_49/2025_-_PM_116_Trilog_zu_Neuen_Zuechtungsmethoden.pdf">objections</a> to patents.</li> </ul> <p>In the negotiations that were finalised last December, the Parliament’s rapporteur failed to uphold the Parliament’s position, which demanded mandatory consumer labelling <em>and </em>did not allow patents for NGTs that would be deregulated. The provisions on patents that are included in the current text such as the setting up of an expert group are insufficient to protect farmers’ and breeders’ interests.</p> <p>In addition, today the coalition <em>No Patents on Seeds!</em> published a <a href="https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/survey">representative survey</a> in five EU countries (France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Poland). The results are clear: Around <strong>80 percent of the citizens reject patents</strong> on living organisms such as plants or animals.&nbsp;<br><br><strong>Nina Holland, researcher at Corporate Europe Observatory</strong>, said: <em>“The only ones profiting from scrapping safety and labeling rules and from patents are the few big seed corporations like Bayer and Syngenta. The Members of the European Parliament have a final chance to protect the interests of consumers, farmers and SME breeding companies”.</em></p> <p><strong>Claire Robinson, co-director of GMWatch</strong>, said: <em>“The deregulation proposal represents a dangerous grab for power over our seeds and food supply. Decades of experience show that the big agribusiness companies that dominate the patent landscape for new GMOs serve only their own interests and are eager to hound farmers and breeders with allegations of patent infringement. The Parliament must stand up for the people and for a truly sustainable system and reject the proposal in its current form.”</em></p> <p>ENDS</p> <p><strong>For media inquiries, please contact:</strong></p> <p>Nina Holland, Corporate Europe Observatory:<br><a href="#" data-mail-to="avan/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a> ; +32 466 294420</p> <p><strong>Notes to editor</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/biotech-lobby-groups-are-set-trap-farmers-and-breeders-patent-minefield">Please find the article here</a></li> <li><a href="https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/survey">The survey results can be found here</a></li> <li><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2021/03/derailing-eu-rules-new-gmos">More background to biotech industry lobby campaign can be found in this CEO report</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">12.04.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/biotech-lobby-groups-are-set-trap-farmers-and-breeders-patent-minefield" hreflang="en">Biotech lobby groups are set to trap farmers and breeders in patent minefield</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Tue, 14 Apr 2026 09:08:00 +0000 Marcella Via 2386 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/biotech-lobby-groups-are-set-trap-farmers-and-breeders-patent-minefield <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Deregulation of new GM crops will increase seed market concentration, undermine resilience of the food system </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">12.04.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>Industry lobby documents reveal a fierce ongoing battle on patented seeds and agricultural crops. A new EU law that would scrap any safety or labeling rules for a class of new GM crops (called NGTs), is in its final stages. As all GM crops are covered by patents, this will negatively impact the way our food is produced – meaning more market power in the hands of just a handful of corporations, less choice in seeds for farmers and more risk of being sued, and restricted access to plant genetic material for smaller plant breeders. This raises strong concerns, as our&nbsp;food security depends on the availability of diverse and locally adapted seeds.&nbsp;</em></p> <p><em>Members of the European Parliament in 2024 supported measures to curb patents for NGT seeds and crops, but this crucial demand was lost in the negotiations between the EU institutions. In May the Parliament will have a final opportunity to reinstate this demand.</em><br><br>A French translation of this article was done by Inf'OGM and <a href="https://infogm.org/les-groupes-de-pression-des-biotechs-prets-a-pieger-les-agriculteurs-et-les-obtenteurs-dans-un-champ-de-mines-de-brevets/">can be found here</a>.</p> <p>Photo: free image by Freepik</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>For over a decade, the biotech industry has been&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2021/03/derailing-eu-rules-new-gmos">waging a lobby battle</a> with the aim to dismantle the EU GMO safety and transparency rules. While the European Commission is currently busy rolling back health, environmental and social standards through numerous Omnibus proposals, this deregulation proposal (COM/2023/411) of the EU GMO law has been in preparation for several years. The Commission’s proposal would mean that new genetically modified NGT crops would enter the market without any safety checks, consumer labelling, monitoring or liability rules.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.euractiv.com/opinion/who-really-benefits-from-new-genomic-techniques-farmers-and-consumers-at-risk/">It would also mean</a> that independent seed breeders and farmers would be left in the dark about patents, have less choice of seeds and crops, and face higher costs.<a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref1">[1]</a></p> <p>In March 2025, under the Polish Presidency, EU countries agreed to a position implying a far-reaching deregulation. Up until that point, Poland had vehemently opposed patented crops in Europe’s fields. But the proposal it put forward was void of any meaningful action regarding patents – only mentioning a voluntary disclosure of patent information on a GM crop, unverified by any authority.&nbsp;<a href="https://y3r710.r.eu-west-1.awstrack.me/L0/https:%2F%2Fdmp.politico.eu%2F%3Femail=gaelle.cau@foeeurope.org%26destination=https:%2F%2Feuobserver.com%2Fgreen-economy%2Fareabaa9a3/1/01020195933e2b0a-5c3bf459-aa45-4299-8ee2-6f398ddf80a9-000000/XVQ19RbR0i0q20DTddd5wqmT658=417">An investigation published in EUobserver</a> exposed the pressure that had been put on Poland.<a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref2">[2]</a> Big biotech multinationals tried to convince Polish seed companies to join their patent platform.&nbsp;</p> <p>The European Parliament position, on the other hand, supported mandatory labelling, as well as a ban on patents, for NGT crops and products. However, the European Parliament’s rapporteur failed to uphold these key demands in the subsequent negotiations between with the Council and the Commission.&nbsp;</p> <p>Another important issue was the inclusion of some mandatory sustainability criteria as a condition for new GM crops to reach the market without risk assessment. Indeed, the technology’s promised contribution to sustainability had been industry’s argument all along to justify deregulation. But very little was left of this demand either (see box below).</p> <p>Now, in the final phase of decision making, with a plenary vote foreseen for 18 May, MEPs will have to make up their mind: stand up for a ban on patented plants and foods and for consumer choice – or abandon the rights of farmers, breeders, and consumers.</p> <p>The European Commission has released a cache of lobbying documents on the NGT deregulation proposal in response to an access to information request from Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO).&nbsp;</p> <p>The documents show in particular&nbsp;</p> <ul> <li>How&nbsp;farm lobby Copa-Cogeca in a 2025 letter to the EU institutions clearly spelled out the disadvantages of patented food crops for farmers. However, later in the year, the group called for the new deregulation law to pass and stayed silent on the unresolved patent issue,&nbsp;leaving plant breeders and farmers at the mercy of patent infringement allegations by patent owning companies.</li> <li>How&nbsp;the&nbsp;pesticide and biotech industry lobby group CropLife Europe actively tried to allay widespread concerns about the increase in patented crops in the marketplace that would be triggered by the proposed deregulation of NGT plants.&nbsp;</li> </ul> <p><strong>Patents a sticking point</strong></p> <p>The patents issue has proven a sticking point for&nbsp;the European Parliament,<a href="#_edn3" name="_ednref3">[3]</a> EU Member States, farmers,<a href="#_edn4" name="_ednref4">[4]</a> and plant breeders.<a href="#_edn5" name="_ednref5">[5]</a> Farmers worry that they will be sued for patent infringement if their crops are alleged to contain patented NGT genetic material, whether resulting from contamination by untraceable patented NGT plants or from native genes or genetic material derived from traditional, non-patentable breeding. Plant breeders are concerned that NGT deregulation will usher in a wave of patented NGT plants that will severely restrict access to valuable non-GMO plant genetic material to use in their breeding programmes.</p> <p>Many organisations defending food safety, the environment, farmers’ rights, and science (including farmers organisation Via Campesina, IFOAM Organics Europe, the European non-GM food sector organisation ENGA, foodwatch, Friends of the Earth Europe, and scientist organisation ENSSER) have&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/FINAL%20-%20Joint%20statement%20-%20New%20GMOs%20-%2010.02.pdf">repeatedly spoken out</a> against the&nbsp;NGT deregulation and oppose the increasing trend of patents on NGT plants extending to plants produced from conventional breeding.<a href="#_edn6" name="_ednref6">[6]</a> Also, a new, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=11805&amp;qid=1932591">representative survey</a> held in five EU countries (France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Poland) show that 80 percent of the citizens reject patents on living organisms such as plants or animals.</p> <p>This is a growing problem. Patents affecting over 1000 conventionally bred plant varieties have been granted by the European Patent Office (EPO), contradicting its own rules.<a href="#_edn7" name="_ednref7">[7]</a> Patents are granted that claim traits obtained by genetic engineering techniques like gene editing, but also include the same traits obtained by conventional breeding. By law, patents should only cover genetic engineering and not conventional breeding. Indeed, EU law bans patents on conventional breeding, but as reported by the coalition No Patents on Seeds!, the EPO continues to ignore this provision.<a href="#_edn8" name="_ednref8">[8]</a>&nbsp;</p> <p>Recently a patent was granted on tomatoes resistant to a plant virus, a trait found in wild tomatoes from Peru, to the Dutch seed company Rijk Zwaan. This patent appears to be unlawful, as natural genes cannot be considered inventions. These and other patent applications&nbsp;<a href="https://www.biojournaal.nl/article/9737213/verzet-tegen-patent-op-klassieke-veredeling-laait-weer-op-door-tobrfv/">hinder breeding programmes</a>, such as that of the Dutch organic seed company De Bolster, which is also working to develop tomatoes resistant to this virus.<a href="#_edn9" name="_ednref9">[9]</a></p> <p>Other examples of recently granted patents, the scope of which can extend to naturally occuring genes, include maize, spinach, tomatoes and lettuce.<a href="#_edn10" name="_ednref10">[10]</a>&nbsp;This trend would escalate with any deregulation of NGTs, because like all GM technologies and products, NGTs and the products made from them are patented.&nbsp;</p> <p>Phillip Howard, food system expert at Michigan University,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.groene.nl/artikel/verstrikt-in-het-patentenweb">explained in the Dutch magazine De Groene</a> that the seed and pesticide corporations like Bayer have adopted a cartel-like strategy by building several patented traits into seeds, which leads to “a reduced number of available varieties for farmers, pushes them to buy more expensive ones, and where possible link[ing] those seeds to their own pesticide products.”<a href="#_edn11" name="_ednref11">[11]</a> The result is a dangerous dependence on just a few companies by farmers, which poses a significant risk to the food system as a whole.&nbsp;</p> <p>Eight farmers’ associations, the plant breeders association, rural organisations and the organic sector in Germany&nbsp;<a href="https://www.organicseurope.bio/content/uploads/2025/06/IFOAMEU_policy_Positionspapier_Biopatente_DE_EN-translation_20250617.pdf?dd">said in a joint statement</a> that unrestricted access to biological material for plant breeding is essential to “guarantee the range of varieties in a large number of crops for sustainable agriculture that takes account of ecological and economic challenges” and that this can only be achieved “if the plant variety protection system is not undermined by the patent system”.<a href="#_edn12" name="_ednref12">[12]</a></p> <p>The Secretary-General of the German Farmers’ Association DBV, Stefanie Sabet,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bauernverband.de/fileadmin/user_upload/dbv/pressemitteilungen/2025/KW_49/2025_-_PM_116_Trilog_zu_Neuen_Zuechtungsmethoden.pdf">warned in response to the negotiation outcome in December 2025</a> that the potential introduction of patents crosses a clear red line for the organisation. “Patents must not be allowed to block progress in plant breeding progress. If key plant characteristics are monopolised by individual companies, our farmers and small and medium-sized breeders will lose access to important genetic material,” she said.<a href="#_edn13" name="_ednref13">[13]</a></p> <p>For these reasons, in the trilogue discussions on the NGT deregulation proposal, the European Parliament voted for measures to curb patents on (deregulated) NGT plants and to restrict their scope.<a href="#_edn14" name="_ednref14">[14]</a>&nbsp;However, by the final negotiation outcome from December 2025, the Parliament’s demands had been overruled and ignored.<a href="#_edn15" name="_ednref15">[15]</a>&nbsp;Therefore the patent issue is still causing concern for numerous actors who want to ensure that the plant breeding and agricultural sectors are protected from the chilling effect of lawsuits brought over the use of patented genetic material.&nbsp;</p> <p>Their objections are intensified by the consolidation of NGT patent ownership in the hands of a few powerful players with deep pockets. The patent landscape for “new GMOs” made with gene editing tools such as CRISPR/Cas is dominated by the big seed firms, notably Corteva and Bayer, and some academic institutions.<a href="#_edn16" name="_ednref16">[16]</a> Other big European patent holders include the multinational companies KWS Saat and Limagrain/Vilmorin.<a href="#_edn17" name="_ednref17">[17]</a> These corporations want to have it both ways:&nbsp;on one hand they claim that these new GM crops are “equivalent” to conventionally bred crops, so there is no need for risk assessment; but at the same time they base their patent applications on claims that they are very different and a genetic engineering “invention”.</p> <p><strong>Copa-Cogeca understands the patent threat – but goes silent on the issue</strong></p> <p>In a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/14_Letter_from_Copa-Cogeca_on_new_genomic_techniques_NGTs_and_patent__protection.pdf">letter of May 2025</a>, Copa-Cogeca strongly opposed patents on NGT crops. Uncompromising in its warning, Copa-Cogeca stated: “It is essential that the European Parliament, the Council, and the European Commission agree without delay on effective legal reforms that clearly limit the scope of patent protection in plant breeding. Only through such targeted legislative action can we preserve fair competition, foster agricultural innovation, and secure the future of sustainable food production in the EU.”&nbsp;</p> <p>Copa-Cogeca said it supported the Community Plant Variety Right (CPVR) system, which protects breeders’ intellectual property rights to plant varieties they develop while providing a breeders’ exemption, which allows protected varieties to be used freely in further breeding, on condition, however, that they remove the patented genes. CPVR also provides an exemption for farmers, who may use their own farm-saved seed on condition that they pay licence fees to the breeders.<a href="#_edn18" name="_ednref18">[18]</a>&nbsp;</p> <p>In a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-5.pdf">meeting</a> in July 2025, Copa-Cogeca reiterated&nbsp;its concerns “about the potential impact of the patenting of NGT plants on the future diversity and affordability of seeds for farmers”, while agreeing with the scrapping of biosafety rules for these crops.<a href="#_edn19" name="_ednref19">[19]</a> However, in September 2025, without any meaningful solution to the patent issue being written into the deregulation proposal, Copa-Cogeca wrote again to the Commission, reiterating that the “legislation on NGTs must be adopted without delay”. The letter did not mention patents at all.<a href="#_edn20" name="_ednref20">[20]</a> Copa-Cogeca called again for “swift conclusions on the negotiations” in a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-2.pdf">meeting</a> on 3 November with DG SANTE.<a href="#_edn21" name="_ednref21">[21]</a></p> <p>Copa Cogeca’s ambiguous position was also evidenced in an earlier message to politicians claiming the issue of patents is separate from the issue of NGT deregulation.<a href="#_edn22" name="_ednref22">[22]</a>&nbsp; It thus appears that Copa-Cogeca’s lobbying abandons farmers and breeders to an increasingly concentrated seed market and a legal minefield of patent infringement claims.</p> <p><strong>CropLife Europe and Euroseeds want to tie farmers and breeders to patents and and replace public law with private licensing platforms&nbsp;</strong></p> <p>The pesticide and biotech industry lobby group CropLife Europe&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/17_39140_Intellectual_property_protection_in_the_context_of_the_legislative__proposal_for_a_regulation_for_plants_obtained_by_certain_New_Genomic__Techniques_-_Attachment_to_doc_16.pdf">wrote</a> to the Commission in October 2025, seeking to allay fears over the impact of patents on farmers and breeders.<a href="#_edn23" name="_ednref23">[23]</a> However, CropLife’s arguments are largely irrelevant to the real concerns being raised.</p> <p>With its letter, Croplife Europe sent the Commission&nbsp;<a href="https://croplifeeurope.eu/resources/report-on-the-intellectual-property-framework-of-plant-related-inventions-obtained-by-ngts/">a report it commissioned</a> that assesses the current intellectual property landscape in the EU and its implications for various stakeholders.<a href="#_edn24" name="_ednref24">[24]</a> In its report, CropLife seeks both to calm fears over the impact of patents on farmers and breeders and to defend the patent model. It also attached&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bayer.com/sites/default/files/open-letter-on-why-ip-is-a-catalyst-for-bringing-in-agricultural-innovation-in-the-eu-october.pdf">a letter signed by 32 companies</a>, including Bayer, BASF, Corteva, Syngenta and Limagrain, “underscoring the importance of robust IP [intellectual property] protection in fostering agricultural innovation”.<a href="#_edn25" name="_ednref25">[25]</a>&nbsp;</p> <p>Here are the key arguments from the biotech industry and why they are flawed:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Voluntary licensing platforms:&nbsp;</strong>Large seed companies and lobby groups Euroseeds and Croplife Europe held various&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-6.pdf">meetings</a> with the Commission throughout 2025 advocating for licensing platforms that would ensure “plant patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms in order to facilitate breeders’ access to patented plant material.”<a href="#_edn26" name="_ednref26">[26]</a> In&nbsp;October 2025 Euroseeds and its members Bayer, Limagrain, Corteva, Syngenta, and KWS Saat had a meeting with Irene Sánchez, head of unit at DG SANTE, in which they claimed their industry had a “commitment to addressing the smaller breeders’ and farmers’ concerns regarding patents via the established patent licensing platforms”.<a href="#_edn27" name="_ednref27">[27]</a> Croplife in the same month wrote to the Commission regarding these “existing initiatives to enhance the transparency and access to patented plant-related inventions, such as the PINTO database, the ILP Vegetables and the Agricultural Crop Licensing Platform (ACLP)”.<a href="#_edn28" name="_ednref28">[28]</a>&nbsp;<br><br>However, as&nbsp;<a href="https://technopolis-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/supporting-innovation-in-the-eu-bioeconomy-through-ET0125191ENN.pdf">confirmed by a report</a> by the consultancy Technopolis for the European Commission, voluntary platforms and transparency are not enough to palliate the detrimental effects of patents on plant innovation in general. Voluntary initiatives such as ALCP are especially flagged as being potentially deterrent for innovation as they are voluntary and incomplete, and cannot substitute for clear legal certainty and limitations on patents that impact plant breeding and agricultural production.<a href="#_edn29" name="_ednref29">[29]</a>&nbsp;Under the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20188">ACLP</a> (founded by Corteva, Bayer, BASF, Syngenta and Limagrain), for instance, the extent of access to patent-protected traits is defined by themselves under private law.<a href="#_edn30" name="_ednref30">[30]</a>&nbsp;CropLife’s claim that licence rates will be “fair” does not provide any guarantees that that will be the case.&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;</li> <li><strong>Farmers’ seed saving rights:&nbsp;</strong>CropLife claims that farmers’ seed saving rights are maintained. It states: “In the EU, farmers growing fodder plants, oilseeds, cereals or potatoes retain the right to save and reuse seeds, even when those varieties contain patented traits. However, this right, established in Regulation No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights,<a href="#_edn31" name="_ednref31">[31]</a> applies only to these crops, not all food crops. Also, the right requires payment to the intellectual property holder, albeit with exceptions for very small farmers (such as an arable farmer producing cereals on no more than 15 hectares); and the seeds must be produced on the farmer’s own holding and used on that same holding – selling or exchanging saved seeds is prohibited.<br>&nbsp;</li> <li><strong>Industry suing&nbsp;farmers:</strong>&nbsp;CropLife claims that its members won’t sue farmers for inadvertent patent infringement:&nbsp;“We wish to reiterate our members’ commitment not to enforce their patents against farmers for unintentional minor presence of a patented trait in their field.” However, unless and until it is formally incorporated into European or national law, this declaration has no legal force, including for CropLife members; it cannot be extended to non-members or regarded as valid indefinitely. There are numerous documented cases of biotech companies suing farmers for alleged patent infringement when the companies’ patented genes have turned up in the farmers’ fields.<a href="#_edn32" name="_ednref32">[32]</a> In addition, the terms “unintentional” and “minor”, when applied to the presence of patented genes in a farmer’s crop, are open to interpretation by biotech companies and their lawyers.&nbsp;To protect farmers and breeders from allegations of patent infringement, detection methods for all GM NGT plants, which developers will certainly have in-house or they would not be able to protect their patents, must be made publicly available. Applicants must also be required to supply NGT plant reference material to GMO control labs to enable detection.<br>&nbsp;</li> <li><strong>Numbers of patents:</strong>&nbsp;CropLife claims that patentability criteria are applied strictly by the European Patent Office (EPO), with only about 30% of patent applications for NGT-related inventions granted. However, a search on CRISPR + plants in the European jurisdiction alone turned up 3,327 records.<a href="#_edn33" name="_ednref33">[33]</a> Even if “only” 30% of those are granted, that’s more than enough to tie up breeders and farmers in patent wars. In addition, there is the dangerous trend whereby the EPO is granting patents that cover conventionally bred traits as well as NGT-developed traits (see “Patents a sticking point”, above).&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;</li> <li><strong>Patent ownership:&nbsp;</strong>CropLife claims that patent ownership is “broad and diverse”, with 28% of NGT-related applications coming from academic and research institutions, “showing a competitive and diverse innovation landscape”. But while academic and research institutions often develop NGT “inventions” and patent them, on their own they often cannot afford to commercialise NGT organisms. The institutions will then typically license the product or technology to a company, or sell it outright to them. Even if they retain the patent rights, the farmer or breeder who wants to use the patented traits still has to pay licensing fees and/or royalties to the patent owner. So CropLife’s statement is irrelevant to the threat posed by patents to farmers and breeders.&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;</li> <li><strong>Patents and innovation:</strong> CropLife says that the Plant Variety Protection (PVP) system protects entire plant varieties, but patents protect individual traits. CropLife argues that both systems, working together, are necessary for “innovation”.&nbsp;However, patents on traits cover all plants that incorporate them. This is shown time and again in the patent claims of the industry, which begin with the term, “A plant comprising...” Therefore, these patents could cover hundreds of plant varieties, not just one, which would lead to a much broader negative impact of monopolisation. This will stifle innovation by independent breeders. Therefore, strong protections must be established for farmers’ and breeders’ access to plant genetic material.&nbsp;</li> </ul> <p><strong>What about the promise of sustainability?</strong></p> <p>Industry has always claimed that genome editing would contribute to sustainability aims and used that as a reason for the deregulation of new GMOs.<a href="#_edn34" name="_ednref34">[34]</a> But the biotech seeds lobby actually opposed mandatory sustainability criteria for the deregulated NGT status. In an October 2025 meeting with the Commission, the seeds lobby group Euroseeds and member companies Limagrain, Bayer, Corteva, KWS and Syngenta expressed “concerns that making sustainability a condition for category 1 NGT status would impose a heavy regulatory burden on NGT plants, and raised questions about how sustainability could be assessed at that stage”.<a href="#_edn35" name="_ednref35">[35]</a></p> <p>Indeed, in the final text there are no mandatory sustainability criteria for the deregulated group of NGT products (category 1). Regarding sustainability, the only exceptions for deregulation are those products that are tolerant to herbicides or have known insecticidal effects. Otherwise, only a monitoring of sustainability impacts of NGTs is included in the text.<br>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>New law brings less safety, more patent control – what will Parliament do?</strong></p> <p>In December 2025, despite all opposition, a final compromise was reached between the EU Member States and the European Parliament’s rapporteur, with the latter giving up on the Parliament’s key demands for labelling and a ban on patents. Instead, weak proposals were adopted, such as a public database for patent information for NGT1 products (those assumed to be equivalent to conventional plants), the Commission setting up an expert group, and introducing a voluntary ‘code of conduct’ for patent holders to give licences.<a href="#_edn36" name="_ednref36">[36]</a></p> <p>These weak provisions do not offer any meaningful protection for farmers and breeders against allegations of unlicensed use of patented genetic material in conventional and organic crops, foods, and food products at any point in the supply chain. Breeding programmes risk being abandoned due to the increased monopolisation of plant genetic material by patent owners and the consequent threat of patent infringement claims.<a href="#_edn37" name="_ednref37">[37]</a></p> <p>The deregulation of NGTs is set to lead to further monopolisation in the food chain by large agribusiness companies, through the patenting of food crops. The European Parliament should vote to uphold its demands for mandatory labelling from seeds to consumer products, as well as for measures ensuring small- and medium-sized seed companies and farmers and the wider food system are not adversely impacted by patented crops.&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;</p> <hr> <p id="edn1"><a href="#_ednref1" name="_edn1">[1]</a> Clergeau C, Petersen K (2025). Who really benefits from new genomic techniques? Farmers and consumers at risk. Euractiv, 10 Mar.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.euractiv.com/opinion/who-really-benefits-from-new-genomic-techniques-farmers-and-consumers-at-risk/">https://www.euractiv.com/opinion/who-really-benefits-from-new-genomic-techniques-farmers-and-consumers-at-risk/</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn2"><a href="#_ednref2" name="_edn2">[2]</a> Prtorić J, Galindo G (2025). Unpacking EU’s food fight over new gene-edited supercrops. EUobserver, 13 Mar.&nbsp;<a href="https://euobserver.com/46146/unpacking-eus-food-fight-over-new-gene-edited-supercrops/">https://euobserver.com/46146/unpacking-eus-food-fight-over-new-gene-edited-supercrops/</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn3"><a href="#_ednref3" name="_edn3">[3]</a> Osborne Clarke (2025). European Council adopts negotiating mandate on patents for gene-edited plants.&nbsp;16 Apr.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/european-council-adopts-negotiating-mandate-patents-gene-edited-plants">https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/european-council-adopts-negotiating-mandate-patents-gene-edited-plants#:~:text=EU%20moves%20closer%20to%20regulatory,Gene%20editing</a></p> <p id="edn4"><a href="#_ednref4" name="_edn4">[4]</a> ECVC (2024). Patents on new genomic techniques: Briefing note. June.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.eurovia.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/2024-06-Patents-on-NGTS-ECVC-Briefing-note-EN.pdf">https://www.eurovia.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/2024-06-Patents-on-NGTS-ECVC-Briefing-note-EN.pdf</a></p> <p id="edn5"><a href="#_ednref5" name="_edn5">[5]</a> Council of the EU (2025). New genomic techniques: Council and Parliament strike deal to boost the competitiveness and sustainability of our food systems. 4 Dec.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/12/04/new-genomic-techniques-council-and-parliament-strike-deal-to-boost-the-competitiveness-and-sustainability-of-our-food-systems/">https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/12/04/new-genomic-techniques-council-and-parliament-strike-deal-to-boost-the-competitiveness-and-sustainability-of-our-food-systems/</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn6"><a href="#_ednref6" name="_edn6">[6]</a> Greenpeace et al (2025). Joint statement on the deregulation of new GMOs. 11 Feb.&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/FINAL%20-%20Joint%20statement%20-%20New%20GMOs%20-%2010.02.pdf">https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/FINAL%20-%20Joint%20statement%20-%20New%20GMOs%20-%2010.02.pdf</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn7"><a href="#_ednref7" name="_edn7">[7]</a> No Patents on Seeds! (2025). Just 7 patents affect 145 conventionally bred plant varieties. 10 Dec.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/7-Patents">https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/7-Patents</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn8"><a href="#_ednref8" name="_edn8">[8]</a> GMWatch (2026). European Patent Office turns its back on EU decisions. 14 Jan.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20628">https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20628</a> ; GMWatch (2024). 20 new European patents on conventionally bred seeds. 15 Oct.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20469">https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20469</a></p> <p id="edn9"><a href="#_ednref9" name="_edn9">[9]</a> Biojournaal (2025). Verzet tegen patent op klassieke veredeling laait weer op door ToBRFV.&nbsp;13 Jun.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.biojournaal.nl/article/9737213/verzet-tegen-patent-op-klassieke-veredeling-laait-weer-op-door-tobrfv/">https://www.biojournaal.nl/article/9737213/verzet-tegen-patent-op-klassieke-veredeling-laait-weer-op-door-tobrfv/</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn10"><a href="#_ednref10" name="_edn10">[10]</a> No Patents on Seeds (2026). European Patent Office tries to knock out European patent law. 19 Feb.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/patent-law">https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/patent-law</a></p> <p id="edn11"><a href="#_ednref11" name="_edn11">[11]</a> Galindo G, Prtorić J (2025).&nbsp;Verstrikt in het patentenweb. De Groene Amsterdammer, 9 Sept.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.groene.nl/artikel/verstrikt-in-het-patentenweb">https://www.groene.nl/artikel/verstrikt-in-het-patentenweb</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn12"><a href="#_ednref12" name="_edn12">[12]</a> Bundesverband Deutscher Milchviehhalter e.V. et al (2025).&nbsp;Urgent restriction of bio-patents for breeding and agriculture. 13 June.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.organicseurope.bio/content/uploads/2025/06/IFOAMEU_policy_Positionspapier_Biopatente_DE_EN-translation_20250617.pdf?dd">https://www.organicseurope.bio/content/uploads/2025/06/IFOAMEU_policy_Positionspapier_Biopatente_DE_EN-translation_20250617.pdf?dd</a>&nbsp; The original statement in German is here:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ekd.de/ekd_de/ds_doc/2025-06-12_Positionspapaier_Biopatente_final_komplett.pdf">https://www.ekd.de/ekd_de/ds_doc/2025-06-12_Positionspapaier_Biopatente_final_komplett.pdf</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn13"><a href="#_ednref13" name="_edn13">[13]</a> DBV (2025). Trilog zu Neuen Züchtungsmethoden: DBV warnt vor Patentrisiken. Sabet: Keine Kompromisse zu Lasten der Landwirtschaft. 1 Dec.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bauernverband.de/fileadmin/user_upload/dbv/pressemitteilungen/2025/KW_49/2025_-_PM_116_Trilog_zu_Neuen_Zuechtungsmethoden.pdf">https://www.bauernverband.de/fileadmin/user_upload/dbv/pressemitteilungen/2025/KW_49/2025_-_PM_116_Trilog_zu_Neuen_Zuechtungsmethoden.pdf</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn14"><a href="#_ednref14" name="_edn14">[14]</a> Marks &amp; Clark (2024). EU NGT proposal approval. 14 Feb.&nbsp; <a href="https://www.marks-clerk.com/insights/latest-insights/102jvrc-eu-ngt-proposal-approval/">https://www.marks-clerk.com/insights/latest-insights/102jvrc-eu-ngt-proposal-approval/</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn15"><a href="#_ednref15" name="_edn15">[15]</a> Shah P (2025). EU agrees on NGT plant regulation: what it means for patents and licensing. Dec.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.hgf.com/knowledge-hub/blog-posts/eu-agrees-on-ngt-plant-regulation-what-it-means-for-patents-and-licensing/">https://www.hgf.com/knowledge-hub/blog-posts/eu-agrees-on-ngt-plant-regulation-what-it-means-for-patents-and-licensing/</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn16"><a href="#_ednref16" name="_edn16">[16]</a> Testbiotech (2021). New GE and food plants: The disruptive impact of patents on breeders, food production and society. June.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.testbiotech.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Patents_on-new-GE.pdf">https://www.testbiotech.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Patents_on-new-GE.pdf</a> ; Onorati A (2026). NGT patents, seed market and investments. ECVC, 9 Mar.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/reports/NGT_Patents_Seed_Market_EU_Regulation-_EN_automatic_translation.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/reports/NGT_Patents_Seed_Market_EU_Regulation-_EN_automatic_translation.pdf</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn17"><a href="#_ednref17" name="_edn17">[17]</a> Onorati A (2026). NGT patents, seed market and investments. ECVC, 9 Mar.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/reports/NGT_Patents_Seed_Market_EU_Regulation-_EN_automatic_translation.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/reports/NGT_Patents_Seed_Market_EU_Regulation-_EN_automatic_translation.pdf</a></p> <p id="edn18"><a href="#_ednref18" name="_edn18">[18]</a> Copa-Cogeca (2025). Letter to Commission. 21 May. Subject: new genomic techniques (NGTs) and patent protection.&nbsp;Ref.&nbsp;LETTER&nbsp;(25)01454.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/14_Letter_from_Copa-Cogeca_on_new_genomic_techniques_NGTs_and_patent__protection.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/14_Letter_from_Copa-Cogeca_on_new_genomic_techniques_NGTs_and_patent__protection.pdf</a></p> <p id="edn19"><a href="#_ednref19" name="_edn19">[19]</a> Minutes of meeting between European Commission and Copa-Cogeca, 3 Jul 2025. <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-5.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-5.pdf</a></p> <p id="edn20"><a href="#_ednref20" name="_edn20">[20]</a> Copa-Cogeca (2025). Subject: Urgent need to continue trilogues on new genomic techniques (NGTs).&nbsp;19 Sept.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/24_LETTER2502378-Vrhelyi_-_Attachment_to_doc_23.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/24_LETTER2502378-Vrhelyi_-_Attachment_to_doc_23.pdf</a></p> <p id="edn21"><a href="#_ednref21" name="_edn21">[21]</a> Minutes of meeting between European Commission and Copa-Cogeca, 3 Nov 2025</p> <p><a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-2.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-2.pdf</a></p> <p id="edn22"><a href="#_ednref22" name="_edn22">[22]</a> Meunier E (2025). Copa-Cogeca’s ambiguities on the issue of plant patents. Inf’OGM, 29 Jan.&nbsp;<a href="https://infogm.org/en/copa-cogecas-ambiguities-on-the-issue-of-plant-patents/">https://infogm.org/en/copa-cogecas-ambiguities-on-the-issue-of-plant-patents/</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn23"><a href="#_ednref23" name="_edn23">[23]</a> CropLife Europe (2025). Intellectual property protection in the context of the legislative proposal for a regulation for plants obtained by certain New Genomic Techniques. LET/25/LL/39140. 24 Oct.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/17_39140_Intellectual_property_protection_in_the_context_of_the_legislative__proposal_for_a_regulation_for_plants_obtained_by_certain_New_Genomic__Techniques_-_Attachment_to_doc_16.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/17_39140_Intellectual_property_protection_in_the_context_of_the_legislative__proposal_for_a_regulation_for_plants_obtained_by_certain_New_Genomic__Techniques_-_Attachment_to_doc_16.pdf</a></p> <p id="edn24"><a href="#_ednref24" name="_edn24">[24]</a> CropLife Europe (2025). Report on the Intellectual Property framework of plant related inventions obtained by NGTs.&nbsp;<a href="https://croplifeeurope.eu/resources/report-on-the-intellectual-property-framework-of-plant-related-inventions-obtained-by-ngts/">https://croplifeeurope.eu/resources/report-on-the-intellectual-property-framework-of-plant-related-inventions-obtained-by-ngts/</a></p> <p id="edn25"><a href="#_ednref25" name="_edn25">[25]</a> CropLife Europe (2025). An open letter to representatives of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and the European Commission on why Intellectual Property is a catalyst for bringing in agricultural innovation in the EU. 6 Oct.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bayer.com/sites/default/files/open-letter-on-why-ip-is-a-catalyst-for-bringing-in-agricultural-innovation-in-the-eu-october.pdf">https://www.bayer.com/sites/default/files/open-letter-on-why-ip-is-a-catalyst-for-bringing-in-agricultural-innovation-in-the-eu-october.pdf</a> ; CropLife Europe (2025). Email: CLE letter on IP protection in the context of the legislative proposal for a regulation for plants obtained by certain New Genomic Techniques. 29 Oct.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/16_CLE_letter_on_IP_protection_in_the_context_of_the_legislative_proposal_for_a__regulation_for_plants_obtained_by_certain_New_Genomic_Techniques.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/16_CLE_letter_on_IP_protection_in_the_context_of_the_legislative_proposal_for_a__regulation_for_plants_obtained_by_certain_New_Genomic_Techniques.pdf</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn26"><a href="#_ednref26" name="_edn26">[26]</a> Minutes of meeting between European Commission and Euroseeds, 7 Jul 2025. <a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-6.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-6.pdf</a></p> <p id="edn27"><a href="#_ednref27" name="_edn27">[27]</a> Minutes of meeting between European Commission and Limagrain et al, 9 Oct 2025</p> <p><a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-3.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-3.pdf</a></p> <p id="edn28"><a href="#_ednref28" name="_edn28">[28]</a> CropLife Europe (2025). Intellectual property protection in the context of the legislative proposal for a regulation for plants obtained by certain New Genomic Techniques. LET/25/LL/39140. 24 Oct.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/17_39140_Intellectual_property_protection_in_the_context_of_the_legislative__proposal_for_a_regulation_for_plants_obtained_by_certain_New_Genomic__Techniques_-_Attachment_to_doc_16.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/17_39140_Intellectual_property_protection_in_the_context_of_the_legislative__proposal_for_a_regulation_for_plants_obtained_by_certain_New_Genomic__Techniques_-_Attachment_to_doc_16.pdf</a></p> <p id="edn29"><a href="#_ednref29" name="_edn29">[29]</a> Technopolis (2025). Supporting innovation in the EU bioeconomy through intellectual property protection: Challenges and opportunities for agricultural biotechnology. Final Report. European Commission, Nov.&nbsp;<a href="https://technopolis-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/supporting-innovation-in-the-eu-bioeconomy-through-ET0125191ENN.pdf">https://technopolis-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/supporting-innovation-in-the-eu-bioeconomy-through-ET0125191ENN.pdf</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn30"><a href="#_ednref30" name="_edn30">[30]</a> Robinson C (2023). Plant breeders’ associations and seed companies claim to oppose patents on new GMOs – but there’s a catch. GMWatch, 5 Mar.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20188">https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20188</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn31"><a href="#_ednref31" name="_edn31">[31]</a> Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights.&nbsp;<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31994R2100">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31994R2100</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn32"><a href="#_ednref32" name="_edn32">[32]</a> Harris P (2013). Monsanto sued small farmers to protect seed patents – report. The Guardian, 12 Feb.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents</a> ; Center for Food Safety (2013). Seed giants vs US farmers.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/seed-giants_final_04424.pdf">https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/seed-giants_final_04424.pdf</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn33"><a href="#_ednref33" name="_edn33">[33]</a> Lens.org (2026). Search on CRISPR + plants, in European jurisdiction.&nbsp;10 Mar.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.lens.org/lens/search/patent/list?q=(CRISPR%20plants)&amp;p=0&amp;n=10&amp;s=_score&amp;d=%2B&amp;f=false&amp;e=false&amp;l=en&amp;authorField=author&amp;dateFilterField=publishedDate&amp;orderBy=%2B_score&amp;presentation=false&amp;preview=true&amp;stemmed=true&amp;useAuthorId=false&amp;j.must=EP">https://www.lens.org/lens/search/patent/list?q=(CRISPR%20plants)&amp;p=0&amp;n=10&amp;s=_score&amp;d=%2B&amp;f=false&amp;e=false&amp;l=en&amp;authorField=author&amp;dateFilterField=publishedDate&amp;orderBy=%2B_score&amp;presentation=false&amp;preview=true&amp;stemmed=true&amp;useAuthorId=false&amp;j.must=EP</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn34"><a href="#_ednref34" name="_edn34">[34]</a> For example: Minutes of meeting between European Commission and Limagrain et al, 9 Oct 2025.</p> <p><a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-3.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-3.pdf</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn35"><a href="#_ednref35" name="_edn35">[35]</a> Minutes of meeting between European Commission and Limagrain et al, 9 Oct 2025</p> <p><a href="https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-3.pdf">https://www.gmwatch.org/images/CEO_documents/MeetingMinutes-3.pdf</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn36"><a href="#_ednref36" name="_edn36">[36]</a> Council of the EU (2025). New genomic techniques: Council and Parliament strike deal to boost the competitiveness and sustainability of our food systems. 4 Dec.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/12/04/new-genomic-techniques-council-and-parliament-strike-deal-to-boost-the-competitiveness-and-sustainability-of-our-food-systems/">https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/12/04/new-genomic-techniques-council-and-parliament-strike-deal-to-boost-the-competitiveness-and-sustainability-of-our-food-systems/</a>&nbsp;</p> <p id="edn37"><a href="#_ednref37" name="_edn37">[37]</a> No Patents on Seeds (2026). European Patent Office tries to knock out European patent law. 19 Feb.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/patent-law">https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/patent-law</a> ; Scotten M (2024). ‘Laying claim to nature’s work’: plant patents sow fear among small growers. The Guardian, 25 Jan.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/25/plant-patents-large-companies-intellectual-property-small-breeders">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/25/plant-patents-large-companies-intellectual-property-small-breeders</a> ; No Patents on Seeds (2025). Patent on maize with native traits upheld. 6 Nov.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/outcome">https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/outcome</a>&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="14 Letter from Copa Cogeca on new genomic techniques NGTs and patent protection.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/14%20Letter%20from%20Copa%20Cogeca%20on%20new%20genomic%20techniques%20NGTs%20and%20patent%20protection.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">14 Letter from Copa Cogeca on new genomic techniques NGTs and patent protection.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="MeetingMinutes-3.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/MeetingMinutes-3.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeetingMinutes-3.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="MeetingMinutes-4.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/MeetingMinutes-4.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeetingMinutes-4.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="MeetingMinutes-5.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/MeetingMinutes-5.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeetingMinutes-5.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="MeetingMinutes-6.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/MeetingMinutes-6.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeetingMinutes-6.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="MeetingMinutes-8.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/MeetingMinutes-8.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeetingMinutes-8.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="MeetingMinutes-7.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/MeetingMinutes-7.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MeetingMinutes-7.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="16 CLE letter on IP protection in the context of the legislative proposal for a regulation for plants obtained by certain New Genomic Techniques-2.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/16%20CLE%20letter%20on%20IP%20protection%20in%20the%20context%20of%20the%20legislative%20proposal%20for%20a%20regulation%20for%20plants%20obtained%20by%20certain%20New%20Genomic%20Techniques-2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">16 CLE letter on IP protection in the context of the legislative proposal for a regulation for plants obtained by certain New Genomic Techniques-2.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="17 39140 Intellectual property protection in the context of the legislative proposal for a regulation for plants obtained by certain New Genomic Techniques Attachment to doc.16-3.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/17%2039140%20Intellectual%20property%20protection%20in%20the%20context%20of%20the%20legislative%20proposal%20for%20a%20regulation%20for%20plants%20obtained%20by%20certain%20New%20Genomic%20Techniques%20Attachment%20to%20doc.16-3.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">17 39140 Intellectual property protection in the context of the legislative proposal for a regulation for plants obtained by certain New Genomic Techniques Attachment to doc.16-3.pdf</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Sun, 12 Apr 2026 20:46:00 +0000 Nina Holland 2385 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/2025-annual-review <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">09.04.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="ANNUAL REVIEW_2025.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/ANNUAL%20REVIEW_2025.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ANNUAL REVIEW_2025.pdf</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Thu, 09 Apr 2026 21:57:00 +0000 Joana 2384 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/uk-premiere-scramble-hydrogen-south-africa <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> May 5th, 2026 </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">09.04.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/gas-lobby" hreflang="en">Gas lobby</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2>Start: Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 06:00 PM</h2> <h2>End: Tuesday, May 05, 2026 - 07:30 PM</h2> <h2>Location: Mander Hall, National Education Union Hamilton House • Hamilton House, Mabledon Place, Camden, London, WC1H 9BD GB</h2> <h2>Host Contact Info: <a href="#" data-mail-to="whfggenafvgvba/ng/ybaqbazvavatargjbex/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a></h2> <p><em>Register your place </em><a href="https://actionnetwork.org/events/the-scramble-for-green-hydrogen-in-south-africa-screening-and-discussion/"><em>here</em></a><em> to avoid disappointment</em></p> </div> <details class="one-minute-summary js-form-wrapper form-wrapper"> <summary role="button" aria-expanded="false">Check a 1 minute summary</summary><div class="details-wrapper"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-one-minute-summary field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>In London on 5th May? Join us for the UK premier of our documentary, The Scramble for Hydrogen in South Africa. It will be followed by a Q&amp;A with campaigners from the UK, EU and South Africa about the impacts of Europe's green neocolonialism, and what the latest state of play is.</p> </div> </div> </details> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-04/Screenshot%202026-04-09%20at%2014.46.21.png?itok=h7kWkZwJ" width="800" height="331" alt="London map showing where the screening takes place" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>London Mining Network (LMN), Action for Southern Africa (ACTSA) and Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) are delighted to host the UK premier of 'The Scramble for Hydrogen in South Africa'. The documentary, produced by CEO, exposes the impacts of Europe's scramble to import green hydrogen on the lives and livelihoods of local communities across South Africa, and raises the voices of those fighting back.</p> <p>The UK has made green hydrogen a cornerstone of its energy strategy, aiming for an eye watering 10GW of green hydrogen production capacity by 2030, two and a half times current global production levels. Over £2 billion in funding has been committed for projects in Bradford, Barrow, Teesside and beyond.</p> <p>Yet the UK's hydrogen rush relies on platinum group metals overwhelmingly imported by British mining giant Anglo American from South Africa and Zimbabwe, driving displacement, water scarcity and energy poverty.</p> <p>We will be joined by campaigners in South Africa and the UK resisting the hydrogen rush for a discussion following the film, to discuss whether green hydrogen is really the silver-bullet solution to the climate crisis it has been sold as, and who really benefits from green hydrogen expansion plans.</p> <p>We will be joined by:</p> <p><strong>Yegeshni Moodley</strong>: Yegeshni is a Senior Climate and Energy Campaigner at <strong>groundWork South Africa</strong>.</p> <p><strong>Pascoe Sabido</strong>: Pascoe is a researcher and campaigner at<strong> Corporate Europe Observatory </strong>in the climate justice team.</p> <p>More to be announced soon!</p> <p><em><strong>Register </strong></em><a href="https://actionnetwork.org/events/the-scramble-for-green-hydrogen-in-south-africa-screening-and-discussion/"><em><strong>here</strong></em></a></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Thu, 09 Apr 2026 13:37:00 +0000 Pascoe Sabido 2383 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/lobbying-law-how-business-shapes-eu-deregulation <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">01.04.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Brussels, 1 April 2026</strong> - The EU is deregulating at an unprecedented pace: environmental, social, digital and climate policies are being rolled back quickly and systematically. At the driver’s seat there are corporate lobby groups. They are dominating the European Commission’s “simplification” agenda, playing a central role in shaping new deregulation proposals.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/REPORT_CORPORATE%20CAPTURE.pdf"><em>‘This is what corporate capture looks like!’</em></a>, Corporate Europe Observatory’s new report, exposes how corporations are influencing the EU’s deregulation agenda. According to the report, business groups have been granted privileged access to the drafting of Omnibus laws through bilateral meetings and targeted consultations, which are meant to inform the Commission’s decisions on which laws should be changed and how - the Implementation Dialogues and Reality Checks.</p> <p>Corporate interests dominate all key stages of the process:&nbsp;</p> <ul> <li> <p><strong>Omnibus-related meetings with Commissioners:</strong> In 2025, of the 13 Commissioners involved, 84% of meetings were held with business groups, compared to 7.8% with civil society organisations. Commissioners leading on 'simplification' show extreme imbalances: Dombrovskis held 182 out of 184 meetings with businesses, and Séjourné held 84 meetings of this kind, all of them with businesses.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>Implementation Dialogues:&nbsp;</strong>71.1% of participants represent business interests, with limited representation from civil society and trade unions.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>Reality Checks:&nbsp;</strong>Of the 22 Reality Checks analysed, 7 were business-only, 3 had over 90% business participation, 8 had no civil society participation and 11 had 5 or fewer civil society organisations. The average business participation was 79%.</p> </li> </ul> <p>As a result, there is a direct link between corporate lobbying and EU lawmaking. Proposals put forward by business groups in meetings and targeted consultations regarding ‘simplification’, are reflected in the content of the Commission’s Omnibus laws, operating like a direct pipeline from lobbying to lawmaking.</p> <p>The so-called Reality Checks is a particularly stark case, in that non-business participation is minuscule, there is little or no transparency around the meetings, and the link to Omnibus proposals are in some prominent cases very direct. With this approach, Corporate Europe Observatory believes the European Commission is in clear breech of old principles of consultation and transparency.&nbsp; At the same time, key safeguards for EU lawmaking are being undermined. Procedures designed to ensure balanced and evidence-based policymaking, such as broad consultations and impact assessments, are being sidelined in favour of faster, more targeted processes.</p> <p><strong>Kenneth Haar, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner,&nbsp;</strong>says:<strong>&nbsp;</strong></p> <p><em>“We are witnessing an unprecedented level of corporate capture. In this new, more radical deregulation frenzy, corporate lobby groups are not just influencing policy, but shaping it from the outset. Corporate demands are translated into the Commission’s legislative proposals. To create this fast-moving deregulation machine rules are being bent and ethics standards undermined.”</em></p> <p><em>“It is not the first time we see the European Commission invite corporate lobby groups in to assist with a deregulation programme, but corporate capture is taken to a new level today. And we ask ourselves whether the existing framework on lobbying ethics, transparency and responsible decision-making can serve as a bulwark against the worst excesses. The way things are going, the answer is probably no.”&nbsp;</em></p> <p>ENDS</p> <p><strong>For media inquiries, please contact</strong></p> <p>Kenneth Haar, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner</p> <p><a href="#" data-mail-to="xraargu/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +45 2360 0631</p> <p>Marcella Via, Corporate Europe Observatory press officer&nbsp;</p> <p><a href="#" data-mail-to="zrqvn/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +32 489 622233</p> <p><strong>Notes to editor</strong></p> <ul> <li> <p>You can read the full report&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/REPORT_CORPORATE%20CAPTURE.pdf">here</a>.</p> </li> <li> <p>The Omnibus proposals, introduced in 2025, bundle together changes to dozens of EU laws and allow for rapid deregulation.</p> </li> <li> <p>You can read Corporate Europe Observatory’s analysis of the latest developments in the deregulation agenda on <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch">Deregulation Watch</a>.&nbsp;</p> </li> <li> <p>In November 2025, Corporate Europe Observatory&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/preparing-roll-back-digital-rights-commissions-secretive-meetings-industry">exposed</a> the year-long campaign by industry to push for digital deregulation.&nbsp;</p> </li> <li> <p>In September 2025,&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/09/eu-weakens-rules-safeguard-people-and-environment">470 groups urged the EU</a> not to weaken the rules that safeguard people and the environment.&nbsp;</p> </li> <li> <p>In July 2025, Corporate Europe Observatory published an&nbsp;<a href="///Users/marci/Desktop/•%09https:/corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave">article</a> explaining the basic scheme behind the EU’s deregulation agenda.</p> </li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">01.04.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/what-corporate-capture-looks" hreflang="en">This is what corporate capture looks like!</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">08.06.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch" hreflang="en">Deregulation Watch</a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Data pack - This is what corporate capture looks like.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/Data%20pack%20-%20This%20is%20what%20corporate%20capture%20looks%20like.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Data pack - This is what corporate capture looks like.pdf</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Wed, 01 Apr 2026 05:00:00 +0000 Marcella Via 2322 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/04/what-corporate-capture-looks <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Report: How corporations run the EU deregulation agenda </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">01.04.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Where do the EU deregulation laws come from? From extensive talks between the European Commission and business groups, often in opaque new types of dialogue, according to the report <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/REPORT_CORPORATE%20CAPTURE.pdf">“This is what corporate capture looks like!”</a></p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The EU is on an unprecedented deregulation track. Scores of achievements in environmental regulation, social rights, digital rights, and climate policies, are being rolled back swiftly and systematically. In <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/REPORT_CORPORATE%20CAPTURE.pdf">a new report</a> titled “This is what corporate capture looks like”, Corporate Europe Observatory shows how this so-called ‘simplification agenda’, is a cooperative endeavour between European Commissioners and lobby groups.</p> <p>While deregulation campaigns are nothing new to Brussels politics, this one stands out with its scope and methodology: strong obligations are imposed on all EU Commissioners to deliver on deregulation, and it is set to last for years. &nbsp;Corporate lobbyists and other business representatives are invited in to take a major role.&nbsp;</p> <p>In the report we show how a high level of ‘corporate capture” can be seen in the many meetings Commissioners have had with business representatives, and in the two new types of dialogue set up to move the deregulation strategy forward, the so-called Implementation Dialogues and the Reality Checks, both of which are dominated by business representatives.&nbsp;</p> <p>The result is an avalanche of proposals for deregulation, tabled by the European Commission in the form of so-called Omnibuses, ten of which were presented in 2025. And a careful look at them, shows how the main proposals can be traced back to demands from particular companies or lobby groups.&nbsp;</p> <p>In sum, this ‘simplification agenda’ – this deregulation campaign – risks paving the way for an even stronger role for corporate lobby groups in the European Union in the future. We need strategies to prevent that from happening, that include defence of existing ethical standards, measures to stop and roll-back corporate capture, and a broad-based campaign to defend and expand regulation in the public interest.&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>Here's a webinar by Kenneth Haar, main author of the report, summarising its key findings:</em></p><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Qs6nNIeAD9E?si=IKdL8bZH6kEbtjIx" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p></div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">08.06.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch" hreflang="en">Deregulation Watch</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">01.07.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave" hreflang="en">A crash course on the EU’s deregulation wave</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">21.11.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/11/16-steps-towards-deregulation" hreflang="en">16 steps towards deregulation </a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Tue, 31 Mar 2026 22:00:00 +0000 Kenneth Haar 2321 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/03/pollution-playbook-how-industry-blocks-regulation-toxic-chemicals <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> New episode of EU Watchdog Radio </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">26.03.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/pesticides-gmos" hreflang="en">Pesticides &amp; GMOs</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Check out our new podcast episode with Nina Holland, Rachel Radvany and Olivier de Schutter.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>In this episode, Joana talks Nina Holland, agribiz researcher and campaigner at CEO, to Rachel Radvany, environmental health campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), and to Olivier De Schutter, legal scholar and university professor specialising in economic and social rights, who served served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food from 2008 to 2014 and, in 2020 was appointed UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights.</p> <p>Together with CIEL, CEO launched a briefing into how the industry blocks regulation of toxic chemicals. It’s called “<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/pollution-playbook">⁠The pollution playbook⁠</a>”. What a great episode!</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><iframe style="border-radius:12px;" data-testid="embed-iframe" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/episode/3DXfUcusib2wZpfv2JP1Tb?utm_source=generator" width="100%" height="352" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; fullscreen; picture-in-picture" loading="lazy"></iframe></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_3Tfvvb28TA?si=8uHJsBdbOaTBT8qY" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Who we are</strong></h3> <p>This podcast is produced by CEO and Counter Balance. Both NGOs raise awareness on the importance of good governance in the EU by researching issues like lobbying of large and powerful industries, corporate capture of decision making, corruption, fraud, human rights violations in areas like Big Tech, agro-business, biotech &amp; chemical companies, the financial sector &amp; public investment banks, trade, energy &amp; climate, scientific research and much more…</p> <p>You can find us wherever you listen to your podcasts. Stay tuned for more independent and in-depth information that concerns every EU citizen!</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Blog</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/blog/EU-watchdog-radio" hreflang="en">EU Watchdog Radio</a></div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Thu, 26 Mar 2026 17:07:00 +0000 Joana 2320 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/03/inside-far-right-network-targeting-europes-digital-rules <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">25.03.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/digital" hreflang="en">Tech</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="fr-FR">The Trump administration and a network of far-right think tanks are increasingly targeting the EU’s digital regulations and rules on content moderation. Far-right MEPs have taken over these narratives, while tech companies are hoping to exploit the opportunity.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em><strong>This article was written and published by </strong></em><a href="https://multinationales.org/fr/enquetes/extreme-tech/trump-big-tech-rn-que-cachent-les-attaques-de-la-galaxie-reactionnaire-sur-la"><em><strong>Observatoire des Multinationales</strong></em></a><em><strong>. The article has been translated and updated.</strong></em></p> <p lang="fr-FR">In December 2025, Elon Musk <a href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1997279325876367719">called on X</a> for the abolition of the EU, comparing it to Nazi Germany. This followed the European Commission fining Musk's social media platform for a lack of transparency regarding its algorithms, as well as for the misleading use of the blue check verification mark. A few days later, in retaliation, former European Commissioner Thierry Breton and four NGO members combating hate speech were barred from entering the United States.</p> <blockquote><p lang="fr-FR">Together with its Big Tech allies, and far-right think tanks, the Trump administration has launched a full-scale attack on the EU's digital rules</p> </blockquote> <p lang="fr-FR">This was only the latest in a series of wide-ranging attacks by the Trump administration, its tech sector allies, and US far-right think tanks on EU digital regulations, especially on the Digital Services Act (DSA), which sets out a framework for content moderation on social media. These attacks are supported in Brussels by conservative organisations close to the Hungarian government, Christian fundamentalists and by far-right MEPs. On 2 and 3 February this year, the Patriots for Europe group, chaired by Jordan Bardella, co-hosted a transatlantic summit in the European Parliament with several figures from the MAGA sphere and the international far-right discussing what they describe as threats to “free expression”.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Online moderation: from consensus to attacks</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">The objectives of the DSA are widely supported and no significant objections were raised when it was adopted. According to an October 2025 YouGov opinion poll, 53% of French respondents said that social media are not sufficiently regulated, while only 6% felt they are unduly restricted. Over the past years, there have been numerous social media scandals, including the sale of child-like sex dolls by the Chinese e-commerce giant Shein, online harassment, pictures of people being undressed by the AI chat-bot Grok, and harmful <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/tiktok-risks-pushing-children-towards-harmful-content/">TikTok content </a>for teenagers. There have also been disinformation campaigns by third countries, such as Russia, detected on X or Facebook.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">“The DSA essentially creates procedural obligations. Initially, we had little interest in it as it was not game-changing,” says Bastien le Querrec, a lawyer for La Quadrature du Net, a French association focusing on online rights and freedoms. The regulation puts obligations on platforms to have transparent flagging and content moderation systems, which many already had. It bans targeted advertising to minors and other misleading practices. It also requires major platforms to analyse the systemic risks they generate with regard to online hate speech and violence, fundamental rights (including freedom of speech), and electoral processes. In 2022, the DSA was adopted unanimously by the European Council and by more than 80% of Members of the European Parliament, with far-right MEPs abstaining or voting against.&nbsp;</p> <p lang="fr-FR">The DSA did not present a major problem for Big Tech firms either. “When the DSA was passed, Big Tech companies were positive about the legislation. […] There were a lot of rules in the DSA that they were fine with. It was not very costly, moderation measures were already in place, and it was customary to request greater control over what was happening there”, says Jan Penfrat, a Senior policy advisor at European Digital Rights (EDRi). “These companies support laws depending on what costs them money, but also in terms of what is politically opportune. And at the time that the DSA was negotiated, being in favor of online safety and against digital violence was very popular. So companies made sure they looked engaged in this field.”</p> <p lang="fr-FR">Everything changed when Donald Trump returned to power. He has been very vocal against content moderation policies ever since his Facebook and Twitter accounts were suspended following the Capitol riots in 2021. On the very day of his inauguration, he signed an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-freedom-of-speech-and-ending-federal-censorship/">executive order</a> called “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship” prohibiting the administration from fighting disinformation. A few weeks earlier, Mark Zuckerberg had <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSHpYHncNxw">announced</a> the end of moderation on his social media platforms, stating that “Europe has an ever-increasing number of laws institutionalizing censorship”. “Attacking the DSA and moderation on social media might have seemed like a good way of getting closer to Trump,” says Bram Vranken, a Researcher and campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>‘Freedom of speech’: a new MAGA imperialism tool&nbsp;</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">“The censorship narrative is repeated on a daily basis on Fox News, on X… When the UK opens an investigation because Grok undresses children online, Elon Musk will say it is censorship,” says Berin Szoka, president of TechFreedom, a think tank that gets funding from digital giants including Google and Meta.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">“I make a distinction between ‘normal’ digital giants and another very Trumpist component in this sector,” he says. “Those who say they are libertarian, like Thiel, Sacks or Lonsdale, are mad. And they have funded an entire ecosystem of organisations such as the Federalist Society and the Internet Accountability Project to promote their ideas.” <span class="sidenote"><a class="marker" href="javascript:void(0);"><span class="icon--asterisk">&nbsp;</span><span class="visually-hidden">Sidenote</span></a><span class="content"> Peter Thiel, the co-founder of Palantir, David Sachs, a tech venture capitalist and the White House AI and crypto czar, and Joe Lonsdale, also a tech venture capitalist and the founder of the right-wing think tank Cicero Institute. <span class="sidenote"><a class="marker" href="javascript:void(0);"><span class="icon--asterisk">&nbsp;</span><span class="visually-hidden">Sidenote</span></a><span class="content"></span></span></span></span></p> <p>According to them, the main reason why these (anti-immigration, anti-LGBTQ+ and pro-birth) ideas have so little resonance among the general public is because they are censored on online platforms, as a result of the influence wielded by ‘progressive’ elites they want to do away with.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">This is precisely the narrative that the Trump administration is trying to impose, presenting itself as a champion of liberty against a European Union it says is adrift. But while the Trump administration has opened fire on the Digital Services Act, at home it has launched a chilling and blistering attack on free speech, from putting pressure on media to <a href="https://time.com/7318661/jimmy-kimmel-cancelled-trump-fired-colbert/">silence</a> critical voices, to <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly2jnyy2yyo">opening criminal investigations</a> against critics and political opponents.</p> <blockquote><p lang="fr-FR">While the Trump administration has opened fire on the Digital Services Act, at home it has launched a chilling and blistering attack on free speech</p> </blockquote> <p lang="fr-FR">The new <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf">National Security Strategy</a>, released at the end of last year, clearly indicates the aim to support far-right parties in Europe (“the growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism”), while promoting the conspiracy and racist ‘Great Replacement’ theory (“within a few decades at the latest, certain NATO members will become majority non-European”).&nbsp;</p> <p lang="fr-FR">“To justify such a thing, they need to claim moral superiority, they need to be able to portray themselves as the ‘good guys’, Berin Szoka points out. “If you want to be able to say that the US supports a “resistance” in Europe – and that resistance is actually the far-right - you need to say that the other parties are going after free speech.” At the Munich Conference in February 2025, JD Vance stunned Europeans by attacking them head-on about what he described as the rollback of freedom of speech on the continent. According to this narrative, the US far right is not trying to impose its climate scepticism, its anti-immigration and anti-social model on Europe, but is merely defending Europeans against censorship.&nbsp;</p> <p>Since the Munich Security Conference, the Trump administration has only increased its attacks on the Digital Services Act. According to a Reuters report, in the summer of 2025, the White House instructed its diplomats to launch a lobbying campaign against the DSA. In July, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee had just released an interim report entitled “The Foreign Censorship Threat: How the European Union’s Digital Services Act Compels Global Censorship and Infringes on American Free Speech” under the chairmanship of Jim Jordan, a staunch supporter of Donald Trump. In January 2026, US embassies in Europe simultaneously posted a series of messages on their social media quoting Secretary of State Marco Rubio as saying: “We are concerned that freedom of expression in Europe is eroding”.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">In February 2026, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee published a second report on “foreign censorship” that also targeted European NGOs. These claims were quickly <a href="https://netchoice.org/netchoice-praises-house-judiciary-leadership-to-end-foreign-censorship-of-americans/">amplified</a> by Big Tech lobby groups such as NetChoice.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Far-right US think tanks at the forefront</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">Far-right think tanks are playing an important role in the US campaign against EU digital rules. The Claremont Institute, a longstanding supporter of Trump, <a href="https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/make-speech-free-again/">published</a> a <a href="https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/make-speech-free-again/">long rant</a> against the Digital Services Act in 2025 entitled “Make Speech Free Again”. The think tank is one of the organisers of the National Conservatism Conferences (NatCons), which are also supported by Peter Thiel, the co-founder of Palantir among other companies. According to <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/05/how-the-claremont-institute-became-a-power-center-in-trumps-washington-00700147"><em>Politico</em></a>, at least 70 alumni of the Claremont Institute Fellowship serve in the Trump administration.&nbsp;</p> <p lang="fr-FR">The Heritage Foundation, the think tank that coordinated Project 2025 and has effectively become an extension of the Trump administration, <a href="https://www.heritage.org/europe/commentary/europe-wants-be-the-worlds-speech-police">has also</a> amplified the view that Europe is eager to act as a global censor and that the DSA is <a href="https://www.heritage.org/europe/commentary/europes-center-right-turns-censorious-against-america">politically </a>motivated (“The EU’s Digital Services Act is being used to limit new right-wing parties from bypassing old political powers.”).&nbsp;</p> <p lang="fr-FR">The Heritage Foundation has also been tasked by the Trump administration to select EU-based think tanks that would get funding from the US government. The aim: to target the UK’s Online Safety Act and the EU’s Digital Services Act.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">If more evidence were needed of conservative alignment on this issue, in January 2026 the America First Policy Institute, a think tank set up by the first Trump administration and which <a href="https://www.france24.com/fr/am%C3%A9riques/20241125-%C3%A9tats-unis-think-tank-america-first-policy-institute-discr%C3%A8te-machine-de-combat-au-service-de-donald-trump">provided</a> several members of the second Trump administration, posted a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=966091766099800">video</a> on social media accusing “the EU unelected bureaucrats [of wanting] to crush our free speech” by targeting the DSA explicitly. The fine against X and Elon Musk is presented as an attack by Europeans against ‘the Americans’.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-03/signal-2026-01-30-094537_002.jpg%40.webp?itok=Bvw9jE0N" width="800" height="423" alt="Social media posts by Marco Rubio in different languages targeting the DSA" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Groundless allegations against the DSA</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">“The DSA is not going to impose EU rules across the world. Platforms know how to adapt moderation to the various regions of the globe. They have been doing just that. And the DSA is not a threat to freedom of speech. This is a cliche used by the far right to impose its narrative,” says Bastien le Querrec from La Quadrature du Net. “It does not change anything as regards what is lawful online and what is not. That is a matter for national legislation and case law.” Dozens of scholars and academics put forward the same argument in a <a href="https://husovec.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/US-Academic-Letter-DSA-Censorship.pdf">letter to the </a>Republican representative Jim Jordan following the release of his report.&nbsp;</p> <p lang="fr-FR">Nevertheless, the US offensive against EU social media rules is widely picked up by far-right parties in Europe, particularly the National Rally. The Patriots for Europe group has launched an <a href="https://www.vudeurope.eu/petition/dsa-la-liberte-dexpression-menacee-par-bruxelles">online petition</a> accusing the DSA of censoring “some views in the name of the fight against disinformation and hate speech” (see the table “DSA: true or false” at the end of this piece ).</p> <blockquote><p lang="fr-FR">The US offensive against EU social media rules is widely picked up by far-right parties in Europe</p> </blockquote> <p>In the absence of any solid proof that the DSA leads to censorship, right-wing voices have highlighted legal proceedings, some of which are controversial, that are not linked to the DSA. This includes a court proceeding against the Finnish MP Paivi Rasanen for a tweet in June 2019, three years before the EU regulation was adopted. She criticised the Lutheran Church of Finland for supporting the Gay Pride, using the words ‘shame’ and ‘sin’ in connection with homosexuality. She was prosecuted in Finland under the national law on hate speech. The charges were eventually dropped.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">Although freedom of speech is a fundamental right in Europe, it must be balanced with other rights, including the right not to be discriminated against. This approach explains why there are laws that penalise racist and revisionist views. In some cases, in the EU as well as the US, human <a href="https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/systemic-censorship-palestine-content-instagram-and">rights organisations </a>have criticised governments for unduly limiting freedom of expression through anti-terrorism laws, for instance, <a href="https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/10/07/human-rights-ngos-say-social-media-platforms-continue-to-censor-pro-palestine-content">to censor pro-Palestinian voices</a>.&nbsp;</p> <p lang="fr-FR">“In some countries, there are laws that unduly restrict freedom of speech. This has nothing to do with the DSA, but Republicans will exploit it,” says Berin Szoka.&nbsp;</p> <p lang="fr-FR">“They are also making use of Thierry Breton’s letter to Elon Musk, in August 2024, before his interview with Donald Trump on X.” Breton, a European Commissioner at the time, urged the owner of X to ensure that the platform adhered to the DSA, as he organised an online debate with the Republican candidate for the presidential election. Breton’s statements received a lot of <a href="https://euractiv.fr/news/les-defenseurs-de-la-liberte-dexpression-critiquent-thierry-breton-apres-sa-lettre-a-elon-musk/">fire</a> from academics and civil society organisations in Europe. The DSA only applies to formal specifications relating to design (interfaces and algorithms), and the European Commission can only implement measures that are “neutral with regard to content”.&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Orbán supporters and Christian fundamentalists</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">In addition to the aggressive campaign by the Trump administration and MAGA think tanks, attacks on alleged EU censorship are being carried out in the very heart of the EU, including by outfits that have little to do with Big Tech, such as the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) International. This ultra-reactionary Christian organisation was set up in the United States in 1994. <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/files/adf_-amicusbrief_lawrence_v_texas.pdf">According to the NGO Southern Poverty Law Center</a>, ADF fights abortion and gay marriage, and campaigns for homosexuality to be criminalised. Commenting on this piece, ADF International denied having ever advocated for the criminalisation of homosexuality.</p> <blockquote><p lang="fr-FR">Attacks on alleged EU censorship are being carried out in the very heart of the EU, including by outfits that have little to do with Big Tech, such as the Alliance Defending Freedom</p> </blockquote> <p lang="fr-FR">With an <a href="https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/541660459">official budget</a> of more than 110 million dollars in 2024, it was behind the Supreme Court’s ruling to revoke abortion rights at the federal level in 2022. In 2024, its international branch in Brussels declared an annual <a href="https://transparency-register.europa.eu/search-register-or-update/organisation-detail_fr?id=69403354038-78">budget</a> of more than one million euros. “ADF’s expenditure in Europe has soared since 2018,” Kenneth Haar, a researcher and campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory, confirmed. “We get the impression that the DSA is now their favourite target, which is relatively new”.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">ADF expresses criticism similar to that of MAGA think tanks and JD Vance. In fact, the organisation appears to be very closely aligned with Trump’s sphere of influence. In 2020, Michael Farris, who was then president of the ADF, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/07/us/politics/religious-conservative-michael-farris-lawsuit-2020-election.html?fbclid=IwAR3VYtNkzlalSvDsJo5TRQ9gUkhsdKHDh6mp_GiBSdqDO5oF53Z7NzeVru0">worked on appeals</a> to challenge the election results lost by Donald Trump. The association also participated in Project 2025, and its current president, Kristen Waggoner, was <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/05/president-donald-trump-names-advisory-board-members-to-the-religious-liverty-commission/">appointed by Donald Trump</a> to the US administration’s Advisory Board to the Religious Liberty Commission. An ADF International spokesperson told us that the organisation is non-partisan and that it works with people across the political spectrum.&nbsp;</p> <p lang="fr-FR">Another vocal critic of the DSA is the Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC) Brussels. The Hungarian organisation set up a branch in the EU capital in late 2022 and has an annual record budget of more than 6 million euros. In May 2025, the MCC released a report critical of the fight against disinformation, likening it to propaganda against free speech. In a <a href="https://brussels.mcc.hu/news/manufacturing-misinformation-the-eu-funded-propaganda-war-against-free-speech-1">press release</a>, it accused the EU of creating moral panic around “disinformation” and “hate speech” to further regulate online speech “under the guise of the Digital Services Act”.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-03/DSA-EN-1.jpg?itok=AAw2nZco" width="800" height="1000" alt="The far-right network targeting the Digital Services Act" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="fr-FR">“MCC Brussels is ideologically oriented, they are anti-EU,” says Jan Penfrat. He stresses that it is a far-right political organisation and not a think tank that would draw upon genuine research. A few months ago, MCC introduced in Washington <a href="https://multinationales.org/fr/enquetes/deregulations-made-in-europe/mcc-brussels-ou-comment-l-extreme-droite-pro-orban-et-pro-trump-s-organise-pour">a plan </a>to dismantle the European Union. “Their opposition to the DSA is either about Hungary, which sees the Commission as a nuisance that needs tackling, or to support their US ally. Trump’s greatest allies in Brussels are Orban’s supporters,” Kenneth Haar points out.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">In April 2025, MCC <a href="https://brussels.mcc.hu/news/mcc-brussels-files-complaint-with-european-ombudsman-over-eu-commissions-concealment-of-dsa-proceedings-on-romanian-presidential-elections">lodged</a> a complaint with the EU Ombudswoman about the Commission’s alleged lack of transparency regarding its investigation into TikTok’s activities before the 2024 Romanian elections.&nbsp;</p> <p lang="fr-FR">While the Commission may be investigating, but the annulment of the elections was decided by Romania’s Constitutional Court based on information from its intelligence services. On X, Elon Musk <a href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1877948465516257646?s=20">shared a post</a> suggesting that the EU was behind the decision, alongside a truncated interview with Thierry Breton. The misleading video clip was then picked up by Jordan Bardella <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffusBEesmy8">in a video</a>, and is regularly disseminated by National Rally MEP Virginie Joron in her <a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-10-2024-12-17-INT-2017008850532_FR.html">speeches</a> at the European Parliament, on her <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1906302846634934">social media</a>, and in interviews on the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66XEkJ8zr-I">MCC Brussels podcast</a>.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Virginie Joron, an outspoken critic of the DSA in Brussels</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">Both ADF International and MCC Brussels can count on far-right MEPs to amplify their messages. Among French MPs, they can count on Virginie Joron, who is running for mayor of Strasbourg in the March 2026 municipal elections. On 21 May, Joron delivered a speech at an ADF International symposium entitled “The Digital Services Act and Threats<em> </em>to Freedom of Expression” at the European Parliament, where she was joined by Reconquest MEP Marion Maréchal. In October 2025, ADF International released an <a href="https://adfinternational.org/campaign/open-letter-dsa">open letter</a> criticising what it described as the DSA as a dangerous censorship regime. The letter was signed by more than a hundred conservative and far-right figures, including Rod Dreher, who has ties to JD Vance and is an associate of the Budapest Institute, another organisation linked to the Orbán regime and Trumpian spheres. Virginie Joron, Angeline Furet (National Rally), and Laurence Trochu (Reconquest, led by Éric Zemmour) are also among the signatories.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">In May 2025, fellows of the Tocqueville Scholarship, which provides training on how to use US ultra-conservative tactics to some of France’s future conservative leaders, <a href="///%5C%5CUsers%5CDownloads%5CNous%20avons%20ensuite%20rejoint%20nos%20amis%20d%E2%80%99ADF%20International%20au%20Parlement%20europ%C3%A9en%20pour%20une%20discussion%20de%20fond%20sur%20les%20enjeux%20du%20Digital%20Services%20Act,%20avant%20de%20participer%20%C3%A0%20une%20r%C3%A9union%20strat%C3%A9gique%20sur%20les%20liens%20transatlantiques%20organis%C3%A9e%20par%20The%20Heritage%20Foundation.%20https:%5Cwww.instagram.com%5Cp%5CDJ-AkvBon6y%5C%3Fhl=en&amp;img_index=2">met</a> members of ADF International in Brussels in May 2025. The agenda included “an in-depth conversation about the issues at stake with regard to the Digital Services Act”. They then discussed transatlantic relations with representatives of the Heritage Foundation.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">In June 2025, Virginie Joron, together with National Rally MEP, <a href="https://x.com/GrisetCatherine/status/1932801387391562038?s=20">Catherine Griset</a>, attended an event organised by MCC Brussels. It was called “The DSA, NGOs and the EU Propaganda Machine”. The conference took place within the European Parliament as it was co-hosted by MCC and two parliamentary groups, Patriots for Europe (chaired by Jordan Bardella) and European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). The third far-right group in the European Parliament, Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN), which includes Reconquest’s Sarah Knafo [Eric Zemmour’s partner]. Like the ECR, the ESN describes the DSA as a censorship tool and <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/news/melonis-ecr-refuses-to-support-thierry-breton-after-us-sanctions/">has refused</a> to support Thierry Breton following last December’s US sanctions against him. Far-right MEP Catherine Griset made it clear that she has aligned herself with the MAGA rhetoric and Trumpist stances when she <a href="https://x.com/GrisetCatherine/status/2003765210751152408?s=20">said</a>: “The United States is breaking away from Europe over censorship”.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Social media, a major political issue</strong></p> <p>The far right’s alignment with the Trumpist narrative can be explained in part by the new US National Security Strategy’s explicit support for ‘patriotic’ parties in Europe. Their virulent objection to the principle of online content moderation also involves more immediate interests. Discriminatory statements and incitement to hatred are banned by French law, and several far-right party officials have been prosecuted.</p> <blockquote><p>The far right’s alignment with the Trumpist narrative can be explained in part by the new US National Security Strategy’s explicit support for ‘patriotic’ parties in Europe</p> </blockquote> <p lang="fr-FR">Again, the DSA is not designed to target specific content. In fact, it provides for appeal procedures in the event of content being removed. Nevertheless, the DSA is targeted on a regular basis, as shown by a <a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2024-001546_FR.html">parliamentary question</a> from Sarah Knafo and a <a href="https://www.instagram.com/laurence.trochu/reel/DABvjtZMCdR/?locale=ne_NP&amp;hl=ar">speech in the </a>EU Parliament delivered by the French far-right MEP Laurence Trochu. Far-right voices often invoke Trumpist slogans about onslaughts on ‘free speech’ when reacting to the dissolution of organisations inciting hatred, such as Generation Identitaire, or to the broadcasting ban imposed on French TV channel C8 for failing to comply with its obligations towards Arcom, France’s broadcasting and digital authority. French MEPs from the three groups, along with other far-right figures, signed an <a href="https://asla.fr/censure-numerique-notre-tribune-signee-par-pres-de-50-elus-et-personnalites/">opinion piece in French weekly <em>Valeurs actuelles</em></a>, written by the ASLA collective - an offshoot of the dissolved Generation Identitaire, which was banned for hate speech - where they suggest that several far-right groups' accounts (Nemesis, Frontières…) have been suspended because of the DSA. Far-right magazine <em>Frontières</em> ran the headline “Censorship: Totalitarian Temptation” in its first quarter issue for 2026.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">“These parties are very active on social media. It’s their main way of communicating,” Bram Vranken says. For this reason, they may fear rules creating a framework for social media, including on algorithmic content amplification. In February 2025, an <a href="https://www.franceinfo.fr/internet/reseaux-sociaux/allemagne-les-contenus-politiques-de-droite-et-d-extreme-droite-surrepresentes-sur-tiktok-et-x-selon-l-etude-d-une-ong-qui-appelle-l-ue-a-enqueter_7086177.html">investigation by NGO Global Witness</a> concluded that ahead of the parliamentary elections in Germany, right and far right contents were favoured on X and TikTok.</p> <p lang="fr-FR">“It took us a long time to regulate allotted time in the mainstream media, to make sure election candidates have equal speaking time on television and radio, even if things are far from perfect,” says Green MEP David Cormand. “Exposure is increasing, including for traditional media. The visibility of their contents also depends on their presence on social media. Therefore, there is a lot at stake should the rules of equity, transparency, and pluralism governing access to information also apply to social media, which is not the case right now.”</p> <p lang="fr-FR">The DSA establishes principles on content moderation and ‘system risk’ reduction, including restrictions on freedom of expression, as well as the negative impact on elections and public debate. But its implementation by the Commission is actually still tentative. Several inquiries have been launched, but only one final ruling has been made – the fine against X. Jan Panfret says, “There is undoubtedly an issue about a lack of resources, as well as some kind of political pressure from outside the EU, but also from inside. They also know that the companies facing them will challenge decisions in court. Therefore, they cannot afford to make mistakes, and they are very cautious”.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Convergence between tech multinationals and the far right</strong></p> <p lang="fr-FR">It is hard to say whether digital multinationals would benefit financially from attacks on the DSA. ‘Toxic’ content can generate more interactions and, as a result, enhance data collection and increase profit. However, advertisers may be reluctant to use platforms that are out of control. X’s advertising revenues <a href="https://www.marketingweek.com/x-2024-revenue-brand-safety-musk/">plummeted</a> after Elon Musk took over. The alignment of Meta and Google with the US administration’s anti-DSA narrative and rhetoric against censorship is an indirect strategy to pursue their economic interests. The tech giants that have gained favor with Donald Trump have obtained, for example, national-level AI deregulation, by the US government <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/defending-american-companies-and-innovators-from-overseas-extortion-and-unfair-fines-and-penalties/?ref=platformer.news">threatening</a> to take retaliatory measures against countries that introduce taxes on digital services or impose fines on “state-of-the-art US tech companies”. India and Canada have already yielded to this pressure and dropped their taxes.</p> <blockquote><p lang="fr-FR">The alignment of Meta and Google with the US administration’s anti-DSA narrative and rhetoric against censorship is an indirect strategy to pursue their economic interests</p> </blockquote> <p lang="fr-FR">Yet many EU regulations are a thorn in the eye of tech multinationals. “During its previous mandate, the EU tried to make a ‘tech deal,’ a package of digital legal texts based in part on specific EU standards such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR),” says David Cormand. These include the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which is designed to fight digital giants’ anti-competitive practices, and the AI Act, which establishes a framework for the use and development of Artificial Intelligence. By joining forces with the Trump administration against the DSA, Big Tech knows it can rely on the Trump administration to put pressure on EU legislation as well.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-01/Screenshot%20from%202026-01-13%2010-06-50.png?itok=gFs9cpmp" width="800" height="579" alt="Google France at a dinner party of far-right MEPs of Rassemblement National " class="image-style-image-l"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-description field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The Head of Public Affairs of Google France&nbsp;joined at a dinner party in Strasbourg hosted by six MEPs from the far right Rassemblement National.</p> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Souce: Instagram</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="fr-FR">They can also count on the support of the European far right, which has already expressed support for the Digital Omnibus, a Commission proposal aimed at weakening the GDPR and the AI Act. Since the start of the parliamentary term in June 2024, Meta has <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/Meta%20lobby%20meetings%20with%20ECR%2C%20PfE%2C%20ESN.png">met</a> fifty-five times with MEPs from European Conservatives and Reformists, Patriots for Europe, and Europe of Sovereign Nations (as of the time of publication). Since August 2025, Meta has had the <a href="https://www.integritywatch.eu/mepmeetings.php">most meetings with the far-right Patriots for Europe</a>, more than with the far larger right-wing EPP party. Just a few days after the Digital Omnibus was proposed by the Commission, the Head of Public Affairs of Google France <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DRfV_JpDdhf/?img_index=3">attended a dinner</a> in Strasbourg hosted by six National Rally MEPs, including Virginie Joron.</p> <blockquote><p lang="fr-FR">Since the start of the parliamentary term in June 2024, Meta has met fifty-five times with far-right MEPs</p> </blockquote> <p lang="fr-FR">In 2021, Jordan Bardella submitted a <a href="https://politique.pappers.fr/question/digital-services-act-strategie-agressive-lobbying-google-QECR892254">written question</a> to the European Commission to express his concern about what he described as Google’s “aggressive lobbying”… against the DSA. He has come a long way since then. The main objective of the far right in Europe seems to be to align itself with the Trump administration and the interests of US multinational corporations. This wouldn’t be the first time. As early as 2025, the European far right was acting as a <a href="https://www.somo.nl/the-secretive-cabal-of-us-polluters-that-is-rewriting-the-eus-human-rights-and-climate-law/">Trojan horse</a> for US fossil fuel interests, weakening the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><table> <thead> <tr> <th colspan="2">DSA: True or false?</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td><strong>The DSA makes it possible to censor online content</strong></td> <td><strong>Yes and no</strong>. The DSA is not designed to take content offline, except if it is illegal under existing national or EU laws. On the contrary, the DSA gives the right to users to challenge platforms content moderation decisions. Platforms are obliged to give detailed explanations why they block accounts or take content offline.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>It is the European Commission that decides whether to censor online contents</strong></td> <td> <p><strong>No</strong>. Platforms are responsible for content moderation. The DSA does impose procedural obligations on platforms to properly address illegal content based on national and EU law.&nbsp;</p> <p>Additionally, the DSA reinforces a ban on general monitoring, which means that they are not obliged to proactively monitor all posts from users for illegal content.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Online censorship stems from political decisions</strong></td> <td><strong>In theory, no</strong>. States decide what is lawful and what is not. Some states may unduly restrict free speech. Appeals against these national laws can be lodged with the European Court of Human Rights. International treaties protect the right to freedom of expression.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Only conservative contents are censored</strong></td> <td><strong>No</strong>. Fundamental rights in the EU do not make it possible to censor content on the basis of political affiliation. If platforms chose to remove content based on the political views expressed, such decisions could be challenged in court. Platforms have a long history of moderating content by amplifying, demoting (by shadow-banning for instance) or taking certain content offline. For instance, in December 2025, Meta is reported to have suspended accounts that were linked to abortion advice and queer content. Also pro-Palestinian accounts have faced systemic censorship on Facebook and Instagram. The DSA imposes obligations on platforms to guarantees that content moderation decisions are transparent and can be challenged in case they violate the freedom of expression. These transparency requirement also cover demands from governments for taking content offline. The DSA also gives users the right to seek out-of-court settlements with specifically established bodies.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>The EU is going to impose its free speech rules across the world</strong></td> <td><strong>No</strong>. Platforms know how to introduce regional moderation rules. They have been doing just that because countries do not have the same rules regarding what is lawful.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>Trusted flaggers are paid by governments and will censor contents unfavourable to the government</strong></td> <td><strong>No</strong>. Platforms know how to introduce regional moderation rules. They have been doing just that because countries do not have the same rules regarding what is lawful.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>The DSA imposes an obligation to prevent “systemic risks” which may lead to censorship</strong></td> <td><strong>No</strong>. Trusted flaggers – organisations that may receive public funding – do not decide whether to remove content. The platform does. Their status only means that their flagging is processed as a matter of priority, given their expertise in detecting unlawful content such as incitement to hatred and discrimination.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>The DSA imposes an obligation to prevent “systemic risks” which may lead to censorship</strong></td> <td><strong>No</strong>. The Commission can only implement measures that are content-agnostic. The DSA obliges the largest platforms to take steps to prevent systemic risks, including threats to fundamental rights or to elections. Platforms must assess how the design of their products, including algorithmic systems, can pose risks to society and take preventive measures. Furthermore, the DSA grants research organisations and journalists the possibility to request data from large platforms to guarantee external scrutiny on how these platforms operate.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><strong>The EU used the DSA to have the elections annulled in Romania in 2024</strong></td> <td><strong>False</strong>. The results of the first round of Romania’s 2024 presidential elections were annulled by the country’s Constitutional Court on the basis of information provided by Romania’s intelligence services regarding suspected Russian interference. The Commission has launched an investigation into TikTok to determine whether the platform has complied with its obligations under the DSA with regard to recommendation systems and targeted advertising rules. The investigation may result in TikTok being fined.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">23.04.2022</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2022/04/big-techs-last-minute-attempt-tame-eu-tech-rules" hreflang="en">Big Tech’s last minute attempt to tame EU tech rules</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">18.01.2022</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2022/01/how-corporate-lobbying-undermined-eus-push-ban-surveillance-ads" hreflang="en">How corporate lobbying undermined the EU’s push to ban surveillance ads</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Wed, 25 Mar 2026 08:00:00 +0000 Bram Vranken 2317 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/03/70-civil-society-organisations-urge-meps-focus-electricity-grids-and-cut-hydrogen-and-gas <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">23.03.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p dir="ltr"><strong>Brussels, 23 March 2026 </strong>- Ahead of the European Parliament plenary vote on 26 March 2026 on an objection to the delegated act setting out the second list of Projects of Common Interest (PCIs) and Projects of Mutual Interest (PMIs), 70 civil society organisations have called on parliamentarians to reject the list in its current form.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.foodandwatereurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Open-letter-to-MEPs_-say-no-to-the-PCI_PMI-list-3.pdf">In an open letter published today</a>, the groups are calling on the Commission to present a revised list of projects focused exclusively on electricity grids that support rapid electrification in line with the EU’s climate and energy objectives.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p dir="ltr">The letter’s signatories warn that the proposed list – which prioritises energy infrastructure under the EU’s Trans-European Network – Energy (TEN-E) Regulation – would allow fast-track permitting and access to EU public funding for more than 100 hydrogen infrastructure projects, most of them pipelines, and two controversial fossil gas pipelines (<strong>Melita and EastMed</strong>), altogether costing more than EUR 80 billion.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">The organisations question the necessity and feasibility of the large-scale hydrogen infrastructure proposed. These projects risk locking the EU into continued dependence on fossil gas-based hydrogen while diverting funding away from the electrification of Europe’s energy system. The organisations particularly emphasise the environmental and social impacts of major hydrogen corridors such as&nbsp;<strong>H2Med</strong> and&nbsp;<strong>SouthH2</strong>.</p> <p dir="ltr">The letter further reiterates concerns raised by the EU Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) and European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC) about the credibility and transparency of the project selection process. The excessive power granted to the gas lobby ENTSOG in project selection, while its members profit from PCI status, creates a serious conflict of interest.</p> <p dir="ltr">The signatories also warn against the EU relying on imports of renewable hydrogen from the Global South to meet<strong>&nbsp;</strong>its unrealistic targets – a strategy which ignores major economic, logistical, and social constraints. The letter stresses that large-scale hydrogen export projects risk exacerbating water scarcity, diverting renewable energy from local needs, and creating new forms of resource dependency rather than supporting a just global energy transition.</p> <p dir="ltr">As current international events demonstrate, such as the oil and gas price shocks, the EU cannot hope to strengthen its energy sovereignty by importing large quantities of energy, whether hydrogen or fossil fuels. The EU must step up its efforts towards electrification, rather than investing in projects that are doomed to become stranded assets.</p> <p>ENDS</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>For press inquiries, please contact</strong></p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Elena Gerebizza</strong>, Energy and infrastructure campaigner, ReCommon</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="#" data-mail-to="rtrerovmmn/ng/erpbzzba/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a></p> <p dir="ltr">+39 340 6705319</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Eliot Garnier-Karcenti</strong>, Senior Energy Advisor, Food &amp; Water Action Europe</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="#" data-mail-to="rtneavrexnepragv/ng/sjrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">+33 6 34 31 56 20</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Gligor Radečić</strong>, Gas Campaign Leader, CEE Bankwatch Network&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="#" data-mail-to="tyvtbe/qbg/enqrpvp/ng/onaxjngpu/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">+385 97 7 45 44 67&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Pascoe Sabido</strong>, Corporate Europe Observatory Researcher and Campaigner</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="#" data-mail-to="cnfpbr/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">+44 7969 665 189</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Mon, 23 Mar 2026 10:33:00 +0000 Marcella Via 2319 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/03/sign-now-reject-food-feed-omnibus <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Stand up for better pesticide safeguards - for health, bees and farmers </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">22.03.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>The EU is planning to weaken the pesticide law. </strong>The <a href="https://www.pan-europe.info/eu-legislation/food-and-feed-safety-omnibus-weaker-protection">Food and Feed Omnibus proposal</a> would scrap the regular renewal process for pesticide authorization for most substances, and make it more difficult for new evidence of harm from pesticide products to be used by EU member states.&nbsp;</p> <p>Right now, the EU countries are discussing the proposal. Some are trying to make it even worse. You can help: speak out now and tell the politicians to take a turn in the right direction.<br><br><strong>Send a message via the form on this page, then spread the word!&nbsp;</strong></p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><script src="https://widget.proca.app/d/health_bees_farmers/ceo" async></script></div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Sun, 22 Mar 2026 19:03:00 +0000 Nina Holland 2318 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/03/new-video-series <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Check out our weekly new explainer videos on topics ranging from lobbying to deregulation </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">10.03.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Sometimes, what we do can sound complicated. So, we decided to create a series of simple videos to explain some of the topics. These range from the 28th regime to the attacks on civil society from the right and far right at the European Parliament. Watch this space and check out our new videos, released every Tuesday!</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_sglHHcjVb8?si=7onbOVZJjeGAzwBQ" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/heqyqKxeYMA?si=h1oNlsTg8C3zy3c_" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Rwhgq_kiFsc?si=8api7EK29Y6qBiq9" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6pc7eI65CPk?si=d3YFjYPuoDVRpcDz" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GKGHfI_nacA?si=qBQOhk91f4LTV64y" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fcFJ2T_8Dqo?si=qDv3FNh5VHBP1avp" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ouJaEC8hZYA?si=6oYep7U2vueptnLm" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KSmdCuriyJ0?si=9DZFLQwHuU1nQ3uN" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V7_kZ9KTVFc?si=0LYs1EKJBqjIBQ_u" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p></div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Tue, 10 Mar 2026 08:59:00 +0000 Joana 2300 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/03/free-lobby-tour-eus-deregulation-frenzy <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Join us for a free lobby tour of Brussels on 16th March at 5pm </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">09.03.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The European Commission’s deregulation frenzy means attacks on labour rights, climate policies, nature protection, public health, among others. If you want to know more, join us on a <strong>free lobby tour of Brussels on 16th March at 5pm</strong>!</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The European Commission’s deregulation frenzy means attacks on labour rights, climate policies, nature protection, public health, among others. If you want to know more, join us on a <strong>free lobby tour of Brussels on 16th March at 5pm</strong>!</p> <p>We will explain the basic scheme behind this wave of destruction, the lobbying happening behind the scenes, what consequences it can have and how we can fight it.&nbsp;<br><br>Sign in at: <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/civicrm/mailing/url?u=10887&amp;qid=1802608">ceo@corporateeurope.org</a> (until Sunday 15 March)</p> <p>Duration of the tour: 1.5 hours</p> <p>Since 1997 we at Corporate Europe Observatory have investigated, revealed and campaigned on the massive power enjoyed by big business lobbyists in the EU. In this lobby tour, we will address case-studies showing how corporate capture has stood in the way of the public good and has influenced and even steered decision-making processes at the European-level, on the topic of deregulation. We will visit <em>in loco</em> the lobby of the offices of these ‘barons’ to the EU bubble and maybe if we’re luck we may even spot some of them!</p> <p>Please note that CEO lobby tours are for free. <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/support-ceo">Donations to support our work</a> are very welcome.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gvBpWQhun04?si=ya0TnIDwiePFUCDr" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Mon, 09 Mar 2026 15:49:00 +0000 Joana 2316 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/watchdog-organisations-issue-call-withdraw-aura-sallas-appointment-digital-omnibus <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">25.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/digital" hreflang="en">Tech</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Aura Salla, a former Meta lobbyist who is now an MEP, was appointed rapporteur of the Digital Omnibus.&nbsp;In an open letter, seven watchdog organisations are calling on the ITRE coordinators to withdraw this appointment.</p> <p>The letter <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/RE%20%E2%80%93%20Call%20to%20withdraw%20Aura%20Salla%E2%80%99s%20appointment%20as%20rapporteur%20of%20the%20Digital%20Omnibus.pdf">is also available here</a>.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Dear ITRE coordinator,</p> <p>On Wednesday, 11 February, it was announced that the MEP Aura Salla has been appointed ITRE rapporteur on the Digital Omnibus, which aims to ‘simplify’ EU data rules, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the ePrivacy Directive.</p> <p><strong>A history of lobbying against EU digital rules on behalf of Meta</strong></p> <p>We, the undersigned watchdog organisations, wish to express our utmost concern regarding this appointment.</p> <p>From May 2020 to April 2023, Aura Salla held an executive lobbying position at Meta Platforms, serving as Public Policy Director and Head of EU Affairs. In this role, she extensively lobbied the EU, including the European Parliament, on behalf of her then-employer, regarding EU privacy rules. Ms Salla was also responsible for Meta’s whole lobbying team, with many of her then-colleagues still responsible for lobbying Members of the European Parliament.</p> <p>Appointing a former Big Tech lobbyist to oversee both the revision and weakening of those same laws raises serious questions about undue influence over the legislative process.</p> <p>Meta has a long and systemic history of non-compliance with the GDPR. Over the past five years, <a href="https://www.enforcementtracker.com/">the company has been fined seven times</a> for GDPR non-compliance, totalling €2.6 billion in fines.</p> <p>The company has a vested interest in weakening the GDPR through the Digital Omnibus and can exploit its close ties with Ms Salla to achieve this. Ms Salla has on several instances met her former employer, including a lobby meeting in September 2024 and another one in January 2025.</p> <p>Moreover, Ms Salla has a repeated history of obscuring potential conflicts of interest. In April 2025, she sold her stocks in a defence company following <a href="https://archive.is/20250401134403/https://www.ftm.eu/articles/eu-lawmaker-defence-stocks-divest-conflict-of-interest#selection-819.71-819.231">reporting by the news website Follow The Money</a>. Ms Salla had never reported those stocks in her declaration of private interests. As far as we are aware, there was no official investigation or assessment of the troubling conflict of interest inherent to holding stock in a company while discussing a major increase in subsidies for that sector.</p> <p>In her <a href="https://data.europarl.europa.eu/distribution/doc/DCI-98219-2026-02-12-533571_en.pdf">declaration of awareness for her role as Rapporteur </a>of the Digital Omnibus, she failed to indicate her previous work at Meta as a potential conflict of interest as required by Article 3 of the Code of Conduct for Members of the European parliament.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Meta has a special interest in the Digital Omnibus</strong></p> <p>The Digital Omnibus has already raised significant concerns among civil society, member states, data protection authorities, and academics regarding its potential to undermine the EU’s digital rulebook. <a href="https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-EU-must-uphold-hard-won-protections-for-digital-human-rights.pdf">More than 130 civil society organisations and trade unions</a> have warned of the biggest rollback of digital rights in EU history, calling for an end to attempts to reopen the GDPR, the ePrivacy Regulation and the AI Act.</p> <p>Furthermore, <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/article-article-how-big-tech-shaped-eus-roll-back-digital-rights">an analysis by Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl</a> reveals that the Commission’s proposal for a Digital Omnibus closely aligns with the demands of Big Tech companies and their business associations. Meta, in particular, is among the most vocal companies advocating for the weakening of the EU’s digital rulebook, particularly the GDPR.</p> <p>Over the past year, the company has intensified its lobby campaign against the EU’s digital rules. It has <a href="https://files.nitrd.gov/90-fr-9088/Meta-AI-RFI-2025.pdf">called</a> the EU’s digital rules a “hostile regulatory regime” and is deploying substantive means in Brussels to influence EU policy-making with an annual lobby budget of more than €10 million.</p> <p>During this second Trump administration Meta has sought to intensify its ties to the White House, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8j9e1x9z2xo">donating $1m</a> to its inauguration fund and <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/zuckerberg-urges-trump-to-stop-eu-from-screwing-with-fining-us-tech-companies/">calling</a> for opposition to EU tech legislation. Since then Trump has <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/us-question-report-sanction-eu-officials-dsa-donald-trump/">threatened</a> the EU with tariffs due to the DSA and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-targets-former-eu-commissioner-activists-with-visa-bans-over-alleged-2025-12-23/">imposed</a> travel bans on a former commissioner and anti-hate speech campaigners.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Need for procedural propriety</strong></p> <p>The Digital Omnibus process is already tainted. The Commission is rushing these Omnibus proposals through at breakneck speed, bypassing rules on inclusive and transparent decision-making, and running counter to the EU’s Better Regulation rules, <a href="https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/news-document/en/205297">as stressed by the European Ombudsman in a recent inquiry</a>.</p> <p>It is then fundamental that the European Parliament scrutinises the Digital Omnibus with the utmost caution to ensure that fundamental rights protections and safeguards are not weakened at the moment they are under severe pressure from Big Tech companies and the Trump administration. This has to be done by upholding an open and transparent process that prevents potential conflicts of interest or privileged access from arising.</p> <p>Therefore, the appointment of Ms Salla as the lead negotiator on behalf of ITRE is not just perplexing, it is highly misguided. We call on you to withdraw this appointment.</p> <p><strong>Signed by:</strong></p> <p>Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO)<br>LobbyControl​<br>BLOOM<br>Transparency International EU<br>The Good Lobby<br>Observatoire des multinationales<br>SOMO</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.01.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/article-article-how-big-tech-shaped-eus-roll-back-digital-rights" hreflang="en">Article by article, how Big Tech shaped the EU’s roll-back of digital rights</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">29.10.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/big-tech-lobby-budgets-hit-record-levels" hreflang="en">Big Tech lobby budgets hit record levels</a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Open letter to withdraw Aura Salla's appointment as rapporteur of the Digital Omnibus" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/RE%20%E2%80%93%20Call%20to%20withdraw%20Aura%20Salla%E2%80%99s%20appointment%20as%20rapporteur%20of%20the%20Digital%20Omnibus.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Open letter to withdraw Aura Salla's appointment as rapporteur of the Digital Omnibus</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Wed, 25 Feb 2026 08:00:00 +0000 Bram Vranken 2312 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/clean-industrial-deal-year-dirty-lobbying <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">24.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>On the first anniversary of the European Commission’s Clean Industrial Deal it’s clearer than ever that it’s not so clean and definitely not green. We track the very heavy industry lobbying involved, the result of which is a focus on deregulation, a discarding of climate solutions, and the throwing of public money at some of the continent’s most polluting companies.</em></p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Introduction</strong></p> <p>On 25 February 2025, the European Commissioned launched its flagship Clean Industrial Deal (CID) with much fanfare. A blueprint <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/dirty-industrial-deal-faqs-part-i-competitiveness">written by and for industry</a>, it covered everything from critical raw materials and the circular economy to carbon border taxes, affordable energy and low-carbon hydrogen. Framed as a cornerstone of the EU’s <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/competitiveness-inside-troubling-corporate-blueprint-coming-commission">‘competitiveness’ agenda</a>, the Commission declared it would resuscitate the continent’s ailing industrial base by providing cheap energy, access to raw materials, and a pathway to decarbonisation, thereby meeting the EU’s climate commitments and boosting its clean tech sector.&nbsp;</p> <p>However, a year later it is clearer than ever that in reality it is more of a Dirty Industrial Deal. It is championing the <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/dirty-industrial-deal-faqs-part-i-competitiveness">weakening of regulations</a> (known as ‘simplification’) that protect the public and the environment, while creating a myriad of less than ‘simple’ mechanisms to throw money at some of the EU’s most polluting companies. Worse, the ‘decarbonisation’ part has been substantially downgraded, although support for so-called climate solutions like <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/dirty-industrial-deal-faqs-part-iv-hydrogen-carbon-capture">carbon capture and storage and fossil hydrogen</a> still are on course to prolong keep the continent on fossil-fuels.</p> <p>On the CID’s one-year anniversary, Corporate Europe Observatory takes a closer look at what lobbying has taken place around it.¹We found more than <strong>750 meetings</strong> with top-level Commission officials, across a staggering <strong>16 different departments</strong> (DGs). That’s more than three meetings per working day. What’s more, <strong>90 per cent of them were with business interests</strong>, while only <strong>eight per cent were with civil society organisations</strong>.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-02/2-100.jpg?itok=5MY5StBF" width="800" height="1000" alt="Overview of some of the findings in graphic format: 750+ meetings; more than 3 per working day; 90% of meetings with business interests; 5% with NGOs; 1% with trade unions" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>A year of lobbying for a Dirty Industrial Deal</strong></p> <p>Because the CID promised to introduce, alter or accelerate whole swathes of new and existing acts, packages, plans and initiatives, it has been a key target for dirty industry lobbying. Almost <strong>500 different business groups</strong> and their representatives met the Commission to discuss its contents. Highly active industry lobbies include <strong>ArcelorMittal</strong> (18 meetings) and French nuclear giant <strong>EDF</strong> (12 meetings).&nbsp;</p> <p>While business interests accounted for 90 per cent of all meetings, <strong>NGOs made up just over five per cent</strong>, and <strong>trade unions a paltry one per cent</strong>. That’s particularly worrying, given how aggressively business has been lobbying to weaken protections for workers and the environment, and is sidelining those who are supposed to defend those interests. However, it reflects the broader pro-business bias that has been baked into this Commission.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-02/4-100.jpg?itok=8a09Vv70" width="800" height="1000" alt="image showing top 5 files and which lobbyists were having the most meetings on them" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Top files targeted</strong> <strong>by lobbyists</strong></p> <p>CEO investigated lobby meetings directly about the CID, but also on the acts, packages, plans and initiatives it mentioned across its 25 pages. Here are its top five files targeted by lobbyists (business and civil society alike), as well as a quick description of what they are:&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;</p> <ul> <li><strong>The Clean Industrial Deal&nbsp;</strong>– <strong>162 meetings</strong> <strong>–</strong> the EU Commission’s flagship programme for 2025-2029, which claims to make Europe competitive by supporting heavy industry and clean tech. Europe’s biggest polluters have lobbied to ensure it includes an array of handouts for technologies that will lock in a fossil-fuelled economy,&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/dirty-industrial-deal-faqs-part-iv-hydrogen-carbon-capture">such as carbon capture</a>.<br>&nbsp;</li> <li><strong>The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) – 145 meetings –</strong> a carbon border tax intended to ensure EU companies investing in low-carbon production don’t get undercut by cheaper and more polluting imports. The CID&nbsp;<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52025DC0085">said</a> it would “substantially simplify” CBAM by reducing how many companies it covers and their reporting requirements, which duly happened. It is still the subject of fierce industry lobbying to weaken it further.<br>&nbsp;</li> <li><strong>The Circular Economy Act – 65 meetings –&nbsp;</strong>reducing, reusing and recycling materials as part of a circular economy (and reducing dependence on China, which has a near-monopoly on rare earth metals refining, and many other critical raw materials), was a key plank of the CID, which also pledged to launch a new Clean Industrial Dialogue on Circularity to gather input for the upcoming Act.&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;</li> <li><strong>The Industrial Accelerator Act – 53 meetings –&nbsp;</strong>a core part of the CID, which initially promised to accelerate the decarbonisation of European industry, but is clearly focused on reindustrialising the EU by slashing permitting regulations, with decarbonisation an additional goal (the word “decarbonisation was dropped from its name in October 2025). It wants to introduce voluntary green labelling schemes for low-carbon versions of products like steel or cement, but is letting industry design them and self-report. The Act has been repeatedly delayed due to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/eus-made-in-europe-proposal-suffers-another-delay/ar-AA1WSX9N">controversy</a> over its ‘Made in Europe’ local content provisions.<strong>&nbsp;</strong><br>&nbsp;</li> <li><strong>Automotive Action Plan – 45 meetings –&nbsp;</strong>the first industry-specific action plan outlined in the CID, intended to halt the decline of Europe’s car industry as China outcompetes it. Supposedly focused on electric vehicles and domestic battery production, it has also seen vehicle emissions targets weakened - it's unclear how prolonging fossil fuelled cars will help the EU compete with the Chinese market.&nbsp;</li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-02/3-100.jpg?itok=JGdoFtu1" width="800" height="1000" alt="Graphic of top five biggest lobbyists on the CID: EUROFER, ArcelorMittal, EDF, Europe Aluminium, Cement Europe" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Who was lobbying for a Dirty Industrial Deal?</strong></p> <p>The most intensive lobbying over the past 12 months, with 39 meetings, was conducted by <strong>EUROFER</strong>, the European Steel Association. While itself a modest actor – reporting spending of less than a million on EU-level lobbying per year and employing eight staff members ­– it represents some of Europe’s industrial giants. These include Germany’s ThyssenKrupp, whose subsidiary is a <a href="https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/business/german-arms-industry-on-a-growth-trajectory">key part</a> of the country’s arms industry, and Luxemburg-based mining and steel giant ArcelorMittal, which is one of Europe’s <a href="https://disclose.ngo/en/article/arcelormittal-public-money-thrown-at-one-of-the-worst-polluters">most polluting</a> – and publicly subsidised – companies.&nbsp;</p> <p>Steel has been a hot topic in Brussels over the past year, with the EU introducing its Steel and Metals Action Plan in March 2025, delaying its phase-out of combustion engines in exchange for the automotive industry making emissions cuts through so-called “green steel”, and more recently trying to protect domestic producers through local content requirements for public procurement under the Industrial Accelerator Act. The steel lobby has been busy.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>ArcelorMittal</strong> has its interests well represented by EUROFER, where it is Vice-President, but it is also number two on the list of most frequent visitors to the Commission, with 18 meetings. Despite backtracking on its own climate commitments, it continues to <a href="https://corporate.arcelormittal.com/media/news-articles/arcelormittal-europe-urges-faster-implementation-of-steel-and-metals-action-plan">push for more support</a> from the EU. A theme across many steel producers, which laud “green steel” and local content requirements as a means of revive the industry, but currently the bill for the green “premium” looks to be falling on taxpayers through public procurement.&nbsp;</p> <p>Third is French nuclear energy giant <strong>EDF</strong> (12), followed by the trade association <strong>European Aluminium</strong> (11), and <strong>Cement Europe</strong> (11). A key topic for all of them was the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (see above), which the CID <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52025DC0085">pledged</a> to “substantially simplify” so it wasn’t a “burden” for industry.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-02/5-100.jpg?itok=V34IkVWc" width="800" height="1000" alt="Pie chart showing which sectors met the most" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Frequent visitors</strong></p> <p>Looking at all lobby groups that had at least five meetings with senior Commission officials in the year following the CID’s release, there are some clear takeaways:<br>&nbsp;</p> <ul> <li>The <strong>metals and mining</strong> sector dominated: it accounted for <strong>41 per cent of meetings</strong>, 136 in total, despite accounting for just over 30 per cent of organisations lobbying; it also made up <strong>6 of the top 10</strong> most frequent visitors.^{2<a id="ref-ftn1"></a>} It has been a big backer of the CID and how it can help weaken environmental standards in the name of building more polluting projects. CBAM was its number one concern.<br>&nbsp;</li> <li>The <strong>energy sector</strong> was the second biggest (<strong>13 per cent</strong> of meetings), followed by the <strong>automotive sector</strong> (<strong>11 per cent</strong>). However, despite only accounting for 11 per cent of meetings, organisations from the automotive sector had the biggest lobbying firepower, employing 190 lobbyists and declaring a combined yearly lobbying budget of almost €15m. As well as lobbying for more protection from Chinese competition, which it is <a href="https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/energy/2025-posts/the-eu-automotive-action-plan-whats-changing-and-what-to-expect">getting</a> via the Automotive Action Plan, the industry has successfully lobbied to delay the ban on combustion engines. This will not only increase air and climate pollution, but also see the industry fall further behind in the technological race with China, undermining its own Action Plan.<br>&nbsp;</li> <li><strong>Trade associations</strong> proved once again to be key to lobbying in Brussels, accounting for almost <strong>two thirds of meetings</strong> with senior EU officials. EUROFER (38), European Aluminium (11), and EUROMETAUX (10) took three of the top four spots, while chemicals industry association CEFIC, a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/competitiveness-inside-troubling-corporate-blueprint-coming-commission">key protagonist</a> behind the competitiveness agenda and the Clean Industrial Deal itself, had eight meetings.<br>&nbsp;</li> <li><strong>NGOs</strong> made up just <strong>four per cent</strong> of the most frequent visitors, with Transport and Environment, on 9 meetings, one of only two to make the cut.</li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-02/6-100.jpg?itok=l5RBFPDb" width="800" height="1000" alt="image of 5 commissioners and number of meetings they had" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Welcoming hosts</strong></p> <p>Public records show 16 different EU departments were subjected to lobbying over the CID, including the office of President Von der Leyen. This spanned Commissioners, their cabinets, Director Generals, their deputies, and heads of unit. However, this is merely the tip of the iceberg, as lower-level staff – often the target of lobbying operations – are not obliged to disclose their meetings.&nbsp;</p> <p>Who were the most welcoming Commissioners and cabinets?&nbsp;</p> <ul> <li>First place, Executive Vice-President for Prosperity and Industrial Strategy Stéphane Séjourné and his cabinet: together they had <strong>131 meetings</strong> with 192 different lobby groups on the CID and related files. This shouldn’t be a huge surprise, as Séjourné oversees DG GROW and is responsible for the CID and many of its related files such as the Industrial Accelerator Act.<br>&nbsp;</li> <li>Second place, Commissioner for Climate, Net Zero and Clean Growth, Wopke Hoekstra: along with his cabinet he had <strong>60 meetings</strong>.</li> </ul> <p>In contrast, the Executive Vice President for a Clean, Just and Competitive Transition Teresa Ribera, who is supposed to jointly coordinate work on the Clean Industrial Deal, had less than 15 per cent of the meetings held by Séjourné. She and her cabinet were in fifth place, with <strong>20 meetings</strong>, only a third of those held by Hoesktra and his cabinet.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>One year on, and it’s clear that lobbying around the EU’s Dirty Industrial Deal has been dominated by the same big polluters that crafted the initial proposal. It was <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/dirty-industrial-deal-faqs-part-i-competitiveness">already intended</a> to serve the interests of Europe’s heavy industry, but the lobbying that has taken place in the year since its launch has ensured it is even dirtier, undermining the rights of workers, public health and nature. Civil society is barely at the table, while industry enjoys an open door. This is in part due to the ideological commitment of this Commission in conflating the industry interests with the public interest, but also reflects the gaping difference in resources between Europe’s biggest corporations and a civil society sector <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/boycott-eps-scrutiny-working-group-ngos">increasingly under attack</a> – financially and politically. To create an industrial policy that serves all Europeans and respects planetary boundaries means listening to those most impacted and not those narrowly focused on profit making.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Methodology and disclaimer</strong></p> <p>The data used for this article is publicly available across multiple European Commission websites, but has been extracted and compiled from two separate lobbying databases that both aggregate the information: <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/">LobbyFacts.eu</a> and <a href="https://integritywatch.eu/ecmeetings.php">EU Integrity Watch</a>.&nbsp;</p> <p>The data covers meetings between 26 February 2025 - 3 February 2026. However, many meetings that took place in early 2026 were not yet publicly disclosed so were not included in the data.</p> <p>For more information on the data collation, please contact <a href="#" data-mail-to="prb/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>.&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em><strong>Footnotes</strong></em><br>&nbsp;</p> <ol> <li>CEO looked into the lobby meetings on the CID directly, as well on those initiatives mentioned in <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52025DC0085">The Clean Industrial Deal</a>: Affordable Energy Action Plan; Automotive action plan; Bioeconomy Strategy; Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism; CfD; Chemicals Industry Package; Circular Economy Act; Clean Industrial Deal; Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework; Clean Trade and Investment Partnership; Critical Raw Materials Act; Ecodesign; Energy taxation; EU content requirements; Foreign Subsidies Regulation; General Block Exemption Regulation; Greening corporate fleets; Grids Package; Industrial (Decarbonisation) Accelerator Act; Industrial Decarbonisation Bank; Lead markets; Low-carbon hydrogen Network Charges; Permitting; Power Purchase Agreements; Quality jobs roadmap; Revision of Public Procurement Directives; Skills Portability Initiative; Social leasing; Steel and metals action plan; Sustainable Transport Investment Plan; Union of Skills<br>&nbsp;</li> <li>The ten most frequent visitors were: The European Steel Association (39); ArcelorMittal (18); EDF (12), European Aluminium (11); Cement Europe (11); EUROMETAUX (10); Transport and Environment (9); Outokumpu Oyj (9); BUSINESSEUROPE (9); Thyssenkrupp Steel Europe (8)</li> </ol> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">29.05.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/dirty-industrial-deal-faqs-part-i-competitiveness" hreflang="en">The Dirty Industrial Deal FAQs Part I: Competitiveness</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">16.09.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/competitiveness-inside-troubling-corporate-blueprint-coming-commission" hreflang="en">'Competitiveness': inside the troubling corporate blueprint for the coming Commission </a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">08.06.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch" hreflang="en">Deregulation Watch</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:45:00 +0000 Pascoe Sabido 2314 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/memory-susan-george <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">19.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The world has lost an important voice committed to social justice and democracy. Susan George was an invaluable author and activist. We at CEO have lost a staunch ally and a dear friend.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>We at CEO we are deeply saddened to learn that our staunch ally, source of inspiration, helpful comrade, and very dear friend Susan George, has died.&nbsp;</p> <p>A sharp writer and author, Susan wrote passionately about social justice and democracy, from the publication of her first book <em>How the Other Half Dies</em> in 1976. She wrote book after book, all of which inspired thousands of people to act.&nbsp;</p> <p>She was always so much more than a writer, she was an activist who helped create movements. She will be remembered as a key figure in the fight against the IMF and the World Bank in the 80’s and 90’s, and for her work for debt cancellation for the Global South. She was important to Transnational Institute, and she will be remembered as one of the founders of the alter-globalisation movement, including for her role in establishing the ATTAC movement.&nbsp;</p> <p>To us at CEO, she was not a distant star, she was a friend among us. Susan sat on our organisation’s board from the outset, and remained there for two decades, accompanying us through countless struggles and campaigns. Whether the subject was the WTO and global trade, about lack of democracy in the EU, the euro crisis or corporate power in all its shapes and forms, she was always sharp, perceptive, inspiring and helpful. A lot of our work has her fingerprints.&nbsp;</p> <p>Some of the things she said about us made us blush. Such as this: “These researchers do what I have recommended ever since my first book: “study the rich and powerful, not the poor and powerless.&nbsp; The poor already know what is wrong with their lives and if you really want to help them, you should help them to understand the forces that keep them where they are." Needless to say, perhaps, is that is a good description of her own work.&nbsp;</p> <p>She was an invaluable voice. We are so grateful to Susan, for what she did for our shared causes, and who she was when she was with us in Brussels or elsewhere. We miss her.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--code paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-iframe field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JdnVFb1ju_8?si=Fl6lNszFn5BL4bd_" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p></div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Thu, 19 Feb 2026 11:20:00 +0000 Kenneth Haar 2311 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/behind-chemical-industry-lobby-blitz-undermine-eu-safety <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Op ed in EU Observer and Apache </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">16.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Harmful chemicals in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/oct/18/chemical-linked-impaired-sexual-development-found-dummies-tests?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other">babies’ pacifiers</a>. ‘Forever chemicals’ / PFAS in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0109-y">dental floss</a>. Known carcinogens in <a href="https://chemsec.org/reports/lost-at-sea/">lipstick lids</a>. These are just three examples of toxic chemicals in everyday products that reveal how the EU’s flagship chemicals policy, <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/chemicals/reach-regulation_en">REACH</a>, is not delivering for citizens.</p> <p>But it is increasingly clear that the planned —&nbsp;and much-needed —&nbsp;robust revision of EU chemicals rules is being derailed by corporate interests.</p> <p><em>This op ed was originally published by </em><a href="https://euobserver.com/202912/behind-the-chemical-industry-lobby-blitz-to-undermine-eu-safety/"><em>EU Observer</em></a><em> and in Flemish by </em><a href="https://apache.be/2026/02/12/lobbyoffensief-chemische-industrie-ondermijnt-broodnodige-hervorming-eu-beleid"><em>Apache</em></a><em>.</em></p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>While REACH has undoubtedly helped to switch some production away from hazardous chemicals, these rules — now 20 years old — are too often slow, inefficient, and have loopholes.</p> <p>As a result, EU citizens are still exposed to harmful chemicals on a daily basis. The health, environmental, and economic consequences of this are huge — and growing.&nbsp;</p> <p>The European Environment Agency <a href="https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/chemicals">says</a> that “according to some estimates, about eight percent of deaths can be attributed to hazardous chemicals. These numbers could be underestimated, given that we are only aware of the health effects of a small portion of chemicals in use today.”</p> <p>That’s why REACH needs urgent reform, to better do the job it was set up to do.</p> <p>The good news is that in 2020, as part of the European Green Deal, the first Ursula von der Leyen commission promised that REACH would be revised.</p> <p>This was linked to an ambition for “zero chemical pollution in the environment” and citizens were promised that REACH’s processes would be modernised, to make it far quicker and more effective to tackle harmful chemicals.</p> <h3>And the bad news…</h3> <p>The extremely bad news is that, five years on, the second von der Leyen Commission has yet to publish a proposal to reform REACH and start to deliver a zero chemical pollution environment.</p> <p>Instead corporate privileged access and lobby spin — alongside Brussels’ <a href="https://euobserver.com/202590/deregulation-tops-leaders-retreat-but-critics-point-to-investment-gap-and-corporate-lobbying/">current deregulation mania</a> and hostility to strong green rules — is derailing the Commission’s previouspromise.</p> <p>New <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/reaching-out">research</a> by Corporate Europe Observatory lays bare this privileged corporate access. In 2025 industry had 93 high level meetings with commissioners and their cabinets on REACH; NGOs, only 19.</p> <p>Our research has also exposed the use of spin and other well-recognised lobby tactics in the operation, by the chemicals industry and its allies, to undermine a progressive REACH reform.</p> <p>These have included: using eye-catchingly high potential industry costs; ignoring the health and environmental benefits of regulation; undermining science; and making misleading claims about how progressive proposals would work.</p> <p>There is a clear pattern of extensive industry lobbying opposing proposals which would make a big difference in tackling harmful chemicals. These include bringing polymers (the ‘fundamental building blocks of plastics’) into REACH so problematic ones can be regulated; dealing with the ‘cocktail effect’ when chemicals are used together; and extending the mechanism to get harmful substances out of day-to-day products.</p> <p>Instead, industry is promoting its own agenda to revise REACH. In particular it is demanding an additional upfront filter on EU regulatory action, which would increase industry’s opportunities to influence decision-making early on, and likely discourage member states proposing bans on harmful chemicals to take action.</p> <h3>From Antwerp to Alden Biesen</h3> <p>There is perhaps no better example of the corporate influence that the chemicals industry holds over the EU than the annual CEFIC-organised jamboree held in Antwerp last week, where commission president von der Leyen reported back on her delivery of industry’s agenda.</p> <p>Two years ago the Antwerp Declaration was launched at this event.</p> <p>This is industry’s <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/trade-union-and-ngo-coalition-calls-out-corporate-shadow-roadmap-dictating-eu-agenda">“shadow roadmap”</a> for the EU which, while framed as something that will boost the economy, is actually an agenda for corporate welfare and the dismantling of the EU’s democratic safeguards.&nbsp;</p> <p>Last year von der Leyen <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_25_628">told</a> the assembled corporate interests that her commission’s policies, including the so-called Clean Industrial Deal, “delivers on each and every one of the 10 recommendations in the Antwerp Declaration”.</p> <p>This year industry’s Antwerp meeting was swiftly followed by an informal European Council summit in Alden Biesen, rural Belgium, which <a href="https://euobserver.com/202382/europes-democratic-winter-how-eu-leaders-impose-deregulation-bypassing-citizens-and-meps/">discussed further ideas to dismantle European social and environmental protections</a>, in a <a href="https://euobserver.com/201594/eu-leaders-retreat-needs-to-hear-less-about-deregulation-from-draghi/">misdirected effort</a> to boost competitiveness. Von der Leyen hotfooted it to the Belgian countryside with industry demands ringing in her ears.</p> <h3>Time for a chemicals lobby firewall</h3> <p>The EU’s chemicals regulations are already under attack.</p> <p>The ‘defence readiness omnibus’ proposes to weaken REACH, while rules on chemicals labelling, cosmetics, and fertilisers are being weakened via the ‘chemicals omnibus’.</p> <p>There should be <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch">no deregulation</a> of any chemicals rules via omnibuses.</p> <p>Considering the privileged access and spin we see in Brussels today, alongside the chemicals industry’s <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/pollution-playbook">long history</a> of undermining science to weaken or derail regulation, it is overdue for decision-makers to avoid interactions with the promoters of hazardous chemicals and their allies.</p> <p>These lobbies have significant financial conflicts of interest, which contradict and undermine the wider public interest of promoting and protecting health and the environment. The chemical industry and its allies must be challenged at every step.</p> <p>Maybe then EU citizens will get the REACH chemicals rules that they were promised.</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">11.02.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/reaching-out" hreflang="en">REACHing out</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Mon, 16 Feb 2026 17:33:00 +0000 Vicky Cann 2313 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/revealed-industrys-lobby-blitz-undermine-chemicals-policy-reform <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">11.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Today, as President Ursula von der Leyen returns to Antwerp to report back to the chemicals industry on how her European Commission is delivering for them, and EU leaders prepare to meet in Alden Biesen to discuss further rolling-back of social and environmental protections, it is increasingly clear that a strong revision of EU chemicals rules is being derailed by corporate interests.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Corporate Europe Observatory’s new <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/reaching-out">article</a>, “REACHing out: Industry’s 2025 lobby blitz to undermine chemicals policy reform”, exposes how corporate privileged access and lobby spin – alongside Brussels’ wider deregulation mania and hostility to strong green rules – is derailing the Commission’s previous ambition to deliver a progressive reform of the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals regulation, also known as <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/chemicals/reach-regulation_en">REACH</a>.</p> <p>Industry’s use of spin and other well-recognised lobby tactics, have included:&nbsp;using eye-catchingly high industry costings; ignoring health and environmental benefits of regulation; undermining science; and misleading claims about how progressive proposals would work.</p> <p>We also reveal how industry dominated access to the Commission's highest levels on the topic of REACH: in 2025 industry had 93 high level meetings with Commissioners and Cabinets on REACH; NGOs, only 19.</p> <p>Corporate lobbyists have used this plethora of meetings to brief against key elements of the promised reform [1], including:</p> <p>- bringing polymers into the scope of REACH [2];&nbsp;<br>- introducing a 'mixture allocation factor' to tackle the cocktail effects of combined chemical use [3];&nbsp;<br>- speeding-up the removal of harmful chemicals in consumer products via the extension of the 'generic approach to risk management' and the implementation of the 'essential use concept' [4].</p> <p>Meanwhile one of industry's key asks, the formalisation of 'regulatory management options analysis', would likely lead to slower and weaker regulation [5].</p> <p>Today’s annual pilgrimage by President von der Leyen to Antwerp to report back to <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cefic---european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">CEFIC</a>, the chemicals industry, and wider big business, on how much she has delivered for them, is a symbol of the staggering corporate influence over Commission policy-making. With industry demands ringing in her ears, von der Leyen will then hotfoot it to the Belgian countryside, to the informal European Council summit, being held tomorrow (12 February) which will discuss ideas by Chancellor Merz and Prime Minister Meloni to further roll back EU social and environmental rules. [6]</p> <p>Vicky Cann, researcher at Corporate Europe Observatory, says:</p> <p><em>“The European Commission is getting its priorities wrong. The chemicals pollution, biodiversity, and climate crises are doing untold damage to people and environments around Europe and beyond. Just last month the Commission’s </em><a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/new-study-confirms-huge-and-growing-costs-pfas-pollution-2026-01-29_en"><em>own research</em></a><em> showed the hundreds of billions of costs that society will incur without action to ban PFAS / forever chemicals. Yet the Commission’s leaders would rather cosy up to industry than deliver on its promises to tackle harmful chemicals. It’s time for the Commission to stand up to big polluters and deliver the strong REACH reform that it promised in 2020.”</em></p> <p>Considering&nbsp;the chemicals industry's significant financial conflicts of interest, which contradict and undermine the wider public interest of protecting health and the environment, Corporate Europe Observatory believes that it is long overdue for decision-makers to avoid lobby interactions with the promoters of hazardous chemicals.&nbsp;</p> <p>The article and its data analysis is available <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/reaching-out">here</a>.</p> <p>ENDS</p> <p><strong>For media inquiries, please contact:</strong></p> <p>Vicky Cann, <a href="#" data-mail-to="ivpxl/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>, +44 7960 988096</p> <p><strong>Notes for editors</strong></p> <p>[1] The European Commission’s October 2020 <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/chemicals-strategy_en">Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability towards&nbsp;a toxic-free environment</a>, published as part of the European Green Deal, included the central promise that the REACH regulation would be revised. It was <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0667">linked</a> to an ambition for “zero chemical pollution in the environment” and it promised to modernise REACH’s processes, and make it far quicker and more effective in tackling harmful chemicals.</p> <p>[2] Polymers should be brought into scope of REACH. There is currently no obligation on industry to report the safety data of polymers to authorities. Once polymers are registered, the most problematic ones could then be identified and further regulatory action could follow.</p> <p>[3] A Mixture Allocation Factor would assess the safety of combinations of chemical substances. When different chemicals are used together, even in minute concentrations, combined exposures can present a higher risk than exposure to the individual substances.</p> <p>[4] An extension of the Generic Approach to Risk Management would encourage use of this fast-track mechanism to get harmful substances out of consumer products. An extension would cover a broader set of harmful chemicals, and both consumer products and professional uses. The ‘Essential use concept’ could reinforce this by only allowing exceptions for uses of harmful chemicals which are necessary for health, safety, or the functioning of society; and if there are no acceptable alternatives from the standpoint of environment and health.</p> <p>[5] Problematically, the formalisation of Regulatory Management Options Analysis would produce an additional upfront filter for EU regulatory action, likely disempower member states proposing substance restrictions, while increasing industry’s scope to influence decision-making.</p> <p>[6] Read the civil society statement in advance of these meetings <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/trade-union-and-ngo-coalition-calls-out-corporate-shadow-roadmap-dictating-eu-agenda">here</a>.&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">11.02.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/reaching-out" hreflang="en">REACHing out</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Tue, 10 Feb 2026 23:01:00 +0000 Vicky Cann 2308 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/reaching-out <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Industry’s 2025 lobby blitz to undermine chemicals policy reform </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">11.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Reform of the EU’s chemicals safety rules (REACH) has been on the European Commission’s agenda since 2020. But an intensive industry backlash, including throughout 2025 as exposed by this report, has drowned out the health and environmental urgencies to get tough on harmful chemicals. Industry’s spin and privileged access to the highest levels of the Commission, alongside the current EU hostility to new green rules and mania for deregulation, appear to have fatally undermined a key European Green Deal ambition.</p> <p><em>UPDATE: On 19 February 2026, 35 civil society organisations published a </em><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/20260219_Statement%20on%20REACH%20revision.pdf"><em>common call</em></a><em> for "Protection first" which demanded that the EU delivers safe chemicals with a high protection of people’s health and the environment. Meanwhile our colleagues at Générations Futures have produced an </em><a href="https://www.generations-futures.fr/actualites/reglementation-protection-fev26/"><em>article</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.generations-futures.fr/actualites/reglementation-protection-fev26/fr-ceo-reachingout/"><em>French translation</em></a><em> of this report.&nbsp;</em></p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>There can be no better symbol of the corporate influence of the chemicals industry than the industry summit being held in Antwerp today (11 February) when Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is expected to report back on how much she has delivered for big business. With industry demands ringing in her ears she will then hotfoot it to the Belgian countryside where the informal European Council summit on 12 February will discuss ideas from the German and Italian governments to further roll back EU social and environmental rules.</p> <p>Below, in part one, we look at REACH, its implementation, and the Commission’s proposal for an ambitious revision of those rules. In part two, we explore the corporate lobbying on REACH during 2025, including on specific elements of a progressive REACH reform, and how industry has lobbied hard against them. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>1. How did we get here?</strong></h3> <h3><strong>2006 onwards: EU’s flagship chemicals policy works well for industry</strong></h3> <p>The Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (<a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/chemicals/reach-regulation_en">REACH</a>) is an EU law which aimed to improve the protection of human health and the environment via better and earlier identification of harmful chemicals, with a view to phasing out or restricting them. The introduction of this law was a historic milestone, and it remains the EU’s flagship chemicals policy. It was introduced in 2006 after a <a href="https://www.alter-eu.org/sites/default/files/documents/bursting-the-brussels-bubble.pdf">mammoth</a> lobby battle. At the time the chemicals industry threatened that if REACH went ahead, the inevitable consequence would be <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/jul/15/environment.conservation">deindustrialisation</a>. But of course this did not happen.</p> <p>Eurostat <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Chemicals_production_and_consumption_statistics#Total_production_of_chemicals">reports</a> that while there has been an overall decline in EU chemicals production over the past two decades, this is partly because of “a notable downward trend” in the production of chemicals which are hazardous to health, alongside a “significant rise in the production of non-hazardous chemicals.” As Eurostat <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Chemicals_production_and_consumption_statistics#Total_production_of_chemicals">notes</a>: “The decline in hazardous chemical production may be attributed to regulatory measures aimed at replacing these substances with safer alternatives.” Other reasons for the falling levels of EU chemicals production have nothing to do with REACH. These include higher fossil energy prices compared to the US and other parts of the world (a long-term <a href="https://cefic.org/app/uploads/2024/05/OXFORD_ECONOMICS_competitiveness_chemind_2014.pdf">trend</a>), a falling global share of spending on <a href="https://cefic.org/facts-and-figures-of-the-european-chemical-industry/capital-ri-spending/">research and innovation</a>, and <a href="https://cefic.org/app/uploads/2024/10/EU27-Chemical-Monthly-Report-September-2024.pdf">“insufficient demand”</a>.&nbsp;</p> <p>Meanwhile, however, the EU’s chemicals trade surplus has actually increased. <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Trade_and_production_of_chemicals_and_related_products">According</a> to Eurostat, “the EU had a growing trade surplus in chemicals and related products throughout the 2014–2024 period. The surplus grew from €119&nbsp;billion in 2014 to €238&nbsp;billion in 2024, equivalent to an average annual growth of 5.7%.” In 2024 alone chemicals exports increased by 7 per cent. This provides some indication that a shift to more sustainable chemical production can actually help boost EU exports.&nbsp;</p> <blockquote><p>A shift to more sustainable chemical production can actually help boost EU exports</p> </blockquote> <p>Twenty years on from the introduction of REACH, the chemicals industry has learned to accommodate its requirements ‒ and to exploit its weaknesses. Despite the benefits that REACH has undoubtedly brought by switching some production away from hazardous chemicals, it has not operated as quickly or efficiently to regulate all such substances as was expected.</p> <p>According to the <a href="https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Need-for-speed-final.pdf">European Environmental Bureau</a>, under REACH, it takes 19 years and three months to restrict the use of dangerous chemicals. Phasing out under the ‘authorisation’ process takes 22 years and 11 months, while harmonis­ing classification and labelling takes 19 years and five months from start to finish. Yet under the same law, industry can market new chemicals only three weeks after submitting data to the EU Chemicals Agency (ECHA), even if that data is incomplete or the substance is unsafe.&nbsp;</p> <p>No wonder then that <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/verband-der-chemischen-industrie-ev?rid=15423437054-40">Verband der Chemischen Industrie</a><strong> </strong>(VCI, the German chemicals industry lobby) apparently told Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall in a meeting on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/kFqF5g7SEW4sjRz">8 April 2025</a>, “in general the REACH regulation works well for the industry.”</p> <p>But it is clear that REACH does not provide the effective protection against harmful chemicals that EU citizens need.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>2020: Commission promises ambitious REACH reform towards zero chemical pollution</strong></h3> <p>The European Environment Agency <a href="https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/chemicals">says</a> that “according to some estimates, about 8% of deaths can be attributed to hazardous chemicals. These numbers could be underestimated, given that we are only aware of the health effects of a small portion of chemicals in use today.”</p> <p>Considering the <a href="https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html">ongoing chemical pollution</a> crisis in Europe and beyond, and the flaws in REACH outlined above, civil society welcomed the Commission’s October 2020 <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/chemicals-strategy_en">Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability towards&nbsp;a toxic-free environment</a> (CSS), published as part of the European Green Deal. The strategy included the central promise that the REACH regulation would be revised. The CSS was <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0667">linked</a> to an ambition for “zero chemical pollution in the environment” and expectations were high that a revision of REACH would modernise its processes, and make it far quicker and more effective in tackling harmful chemicals.</p> <blockquote><p>Expectations were high that a revision of REACH would modernise its processes, and make it far quicker and more effective in tackling harmful chemicals</p> </blockquote> <p>But five years later, the promised REACH revision has not materialised. Behind the scenes, a lot of work has been done by Commission officials to prepare the revision. A <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/chemicals-strategy_en">public consultation</a> was held in early 2022, and in the autumn of the same year an impact assessment on the proposal was sent to the <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/regulatory-scrutiny-board_en">Regulatory Scrutiny Board</a> (RSB) for its opinion. This is an obligatory part of the EU’s law-making process. Yet, despite Corporate Europe Observatory’s <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/03/reach-regulation-eu-commissions-failure-share-full-documents-constitutes-double">1000-day battle</a> to access these documents, including the unredacted impact assessment and RSB opinion, the Commission has <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/why-eu-operating-politics-secrecy-chemical-safety">refused</a> to make the full documents available. The EU Ombudsman <a href="https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/64113">found</a> this Commission approach to have been “maladministration”; it also breached EU <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=aarhus&amp;docid=205322&amp;pageIndex=0&amp;doclang=en">case law</a>.</p> <blockquote><p>Yet, despite Corporate Europe Observatory’s <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/03/reach-regulation-eu-commissions-failure-share-full-documents-constitutes-double">1000-day battle</a> to access these documents, including the unredacted impact assessment and RSB opinion, the Commission has <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/why-eu-operating-politics-secrecy-chemical-safety">refused</a> to make the full documents available.</p> </blockquote> <p>By the time of the European Parliament elections in June 2024, it was clear the REACH revision had been put on ice by the Commission. Media reports indicated that the two directorate-generals leading the revision and their <a href="https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/050423/produits-chimiques-thierry-breton-tente-de-torpiller-le-nouveau-reglement-europeen">respective commissioners</a> ‒ DG Grow (Industry) and DG Environment ‒ could not <a href="https://www.endseurope.com/article/1845418/in-depth-why-major-changes-chemical-regulations-pipeline-despite-shelving-reach-revisions">agree</a> on the scale of ambition for the reform.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>2025: REACH reform derailed by corporate interests and deregulation mania</strong></h3> <p>DG Grow has traditionally supported industry’s view on EU regulation, and the chemicals sector has long <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/02/crying-wolf">enjoyed</a> DG Grow’s support. Industry was never more than <a href="https://cefic.org/app/uploads/2024/05/Cefic-Position-Paper-on-the-Chemicals-Strategy-for-Sustainability.pdf">lukewarm</a> about the idea of re-opening REACH. After all why would it support such reform, when chemical companies have learnt to exploit existing loopholes, and the process to get toxic chemicals off the market conveniently happens at snail’s pace? But the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the corresponding rise in energy prices which hit this fossil-fuel dependent industry’s profits hard, gave the <a href="https://www.vci.de/vci/downloads-vci/publikation/politikbrief/pb-2023-04-deindustrialisierung-stoppen.pdf">chemicals industry</a> and its allies ammunition to ratchet up their opposition to the REACH revision. Something similar happened with the Green Deal’s <a href="https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-05/f2f_action-plan_2020_strategy-info_en.pdf">Farm to Fork strategy</a>: its <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023/11/sabotaging-eu-pesticide-reduction-law-sur">proposal</a> to reduce pesticide use by 50 per cent was eventually withdrawn by the Commission after a corporate and right-wing backlash.&nbsp;</p> <p>Once the second von der Leyen Commission had taken office in December 2024, the Commission <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:149fe240-e92c-11ef-b5e9-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&amp;format=PDF">reconfirmed</a> its commitment to revise REACH, but it was clear that the remit and ambition had substantially changed. Today the European Green Deal is hardly mentioned by Commission leaders, and its previous political priorities have morphed into pro-industry rhetoric and policy, with goals to boost <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/competitiveness-inside-troubling-corporate-blueprint-coming-commission">competitiveness</a> and tackle the so-called burden of green and social rules on corporations. The REACH revision is caught up in the <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave">deregulation mania</a> gripping Brussels, driven forward by the Commission’s Secretariat-General and the deregulation commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis. There is a genuine risk that the reform of REACH could now lead to weaker rules, rather than the long-promised strengthening.</p> <blockquote><p>Today the European Green Deal is hardly mentioned by Commission leaders, and its previous political priorities have morphed into pro-industry rhetoric and policy</p> </blockquote> <p>In September 2025 the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) reassessed a second, updated impact assessment for the REACH revision. Unlike its first positive opinion (available <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/RSB%20opinion%20REACH%20Redacted.pdf">here</a>, although heavily redacted), this time around the Board gave a negative opinion on the second impact assessment, throwing a further spanner in the works. <em>Contexte</em> <a href="https://www.contexte.com/fr/article/environnement/competitivite-et-simplification-les-principaux-griefs-a-lorigine-du-recalage-de-la-revision-de-reach_242426?utm_source=Chemicals+Working+Group&amp;utm_campaign=84ca12f4ca-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_12_02_59_COPY_01&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_term=0_038d0aca3d-84ca12f4ca-1209593233">reported</a> that the negative opinion (which is not in the public domain) was because the impact assessment was incoherent with the proposed measures, and not sufficiently aligned with the Commission’s new political priorities of competitiveness and simplification. This confirmed civil society’s concerns that the REACH revision proposal is now undergoing a substantial shift, towards delivering the interests of industry. Ultimately the dossier will need to receive a positive RSB opinion on a third version of the impact assessment if commissioners want to move forward with legislative reform of REACH.&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>2026: How will REACH fare under unprecedented green backlash?&nbsp;</strong></h3> <p>Today the chemicals industry and its allies feel greatly emboldened. The <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/competitiveness-inside-troubling-corporate-blueprint-coming-commission">Antwerp Declaration</a> agenda, which was initiated by the <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cefic---european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">European Chemical Industry Council</a> (CEFIC, the highest-spending lobby group in Brussels, and the chemical industry’s chief cheerleader) has been adopted <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/competitiveness-inside-troubling-corporate-blueprint-coming-commission">wholesale</a> by the Commission. It has also introduced an industry-friendly <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/good-day-chemical-polluters-bad-day-people-and-environment">Chemicals Industry Action Plan</a>, while the deregulation agenda continues apace, including via the <a href="https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/simplification-certain-requirements-and-procedures-chemical-products_en">Chemicals Omnibus</a> ‒ which proposes to <a href="https://www.clientearth.org/latest/documents/letter-on-the-chemicals-omnibus/">reduce protections</a> against harmful chemicals. Industry is shifting its position and surely dusting off old wish-lists of policy demands, now that it can see how pliant the Commission has become.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Von der Leyen’s annual pilgrimage to the chemicals industry</strong></h3> <p>On 11 February, for the third year running, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is expected to address EU industry leaders in Antwerp, in an event <a href="https://cefic.org/news/cefic-changes-president-on-1-january-2026/">coordinated</a> by the chemicals industry. In 2024 a CEFIC-organised <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/02/crying-wolf-win-chemicals-lobby-antwerp-eu-meeting">event</a> launched the <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/09/competitiveness-inside-troubling-corporate-blueprint-coming-commission">Antwerp Declaration</a>. In 2025 the backdrop to von der Leyen’s speech in Antwerp was the launch of the Commission’s <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/06/faqs-part-iii-chemicals">Clean Industrial Deal</a> (which is neither clean nor green). At that time von der Leyen <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_25_628">told</a> the assembled corporate interests that: “The Clean Industrial Deal, if you look at it, delivers on each and every one of the ten recommendations in the Antwerp Declaration … And next year I would love to come back, to report on what we have done in between,<strong> </strong>to listen to how your reality was in between.” A year later von der Leyen’s wishes will now come true and she is due to address the EU Industry Summit at the Antwerp Stock Exchange.</p> <p>The next day von der Leyen will attend an EU leaders’ retreat at Alden Biesen castle in rural Belgium, which will discuss radical proposals to accelerate the deregulation of EU- and national-level legislation, all in the name of <a href="https://premier.be/en/davos">“competitiveness”</a>. This informal European Council summit will address the deregulation demands <a href="https://cdn.table.media/assets/europe/ger-ita-non-paper-competitiveness_en_finale.pdf">proposed</a> by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz earlier this month. Virtually all of the proposals are longstanding demands of industry lobbyists, promoted by <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/businesseurope?rid=3978240953-79">BusinessEurope</a>, the <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/european-round-table-of-industrialists?rid=25487567824-45">European Round Table for Industry</a>, and others. For more information see Deregulation Watch <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch">update</a> of 29 January 2026.</p> <p>Read the civil society statement in advance of these meetings <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/trade-union-and-ngo-coalition-calls-out-corporate-shadow-roadmap-dictating-eu-agenda">here</a>.&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>So it is not just the Commission which has become more industry-friendly. Among a number of EU member states the far-right is in power or growing in popularity, and as evidenced by the event in <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch">Alden Biesen</a> on 12 February, the deregulation agenda is growing at national levels too. Furthermore, since the 2024 elections the European Parliament has also seen the <a href="https://corporatejustice.org/news/press-release-european-parliaments-far-right-alliance-adopts-position-on-omnibus-i-corporate-capture-on-full-display-written-for-the-few-not-for-people-or-planet/">growing reality</a> of an alliance between the right and the extreme right, likely to manifest itself in opposition to green policies.</p> <p>And of course across the Atlantic, the Trump administration is putting further <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/trumps-trade-war-against-protective-rules">pressure</a> on EU regulations, rebranded “non-tariff trade barriers”. Following a <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/topics/trade/eu-us-trade-deal_en">EU-US trade agreement</a> in July 2025, CEFIC and its US counterpart, the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/american-chemistry-council/summary?id=D000000365">American Chemistry Council</a> said, in a <a href="https://cefic.org/news/cefic-and-american-chemistry-council-joint-statement-on-us-eu-trade-deal/">joint statement</a>: “We encourage both sides to work with our industry to incorporate a binding sectoral agreement on chemical products as a major deliverable of these discussions.” This would likely pile additional deregulatory pressure on existing chemicals regulations such as REACH as, according to the lobbyists, “this agreement should also enhance regulatory cooperation and simplification”.</p> <p>Late last year <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cefic---european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">CEFIC</a> announced that it no longer supports ‒ even on paper ‒ the idea of opening up REACH. In April 2022 CEFIC had appeared more supportive, <a href="https://cefic.org/news/cefic-statement-on-the-revision-of-reach/">pronouncing</a> that “the REACH revision is an opportunity to continue reducing exposure to the most harmful substances and continue building a predictable regulatory system that enables industry and authorities to focus resources where it matters the most…”. However, since then its approach has been to “<a href="https://euobserver.com/green-economy/areb7fa547">delay and weaken</a>” the revision. By December 2025 CEFIC was openly <a href="https://www.politico.eu/sponsored-content/a-breaking-point-for-europes-chemical-industry/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&amp;utm_medium=RSS&amp;utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication">advertising</a> in <em>Politico</em> its “call on policymakers to focus on smarter, more efficient implementation without reopening the legal text.”</p> <p>Instead CEFIC now says that the changes it wants could be implemented without revising the primary REACH legislation, instead being dealt with by amendments at the secondary level (also known as <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/adopting-eu-law/implementing-and-delegated-acts/comitology_en">comitology</a> in Brussels-speak). In late January 2026 <em>Politico</em> <a href="https://y3r710.r.eu-west-1.awstrack.me/L0/https:%2F%2Fdmp.politico.eu%2F%3Femail=vicky@corporateeurope.org%26destination=https:%2F%2Fwww.politico.eu%2Fpro%2Fa-slimline-reach-revision%2F/1/0102019be9724523-5e414c79-ce0c-42c4-bb36-30c733e0a977-000000/xqFDn2R1AzlaJ8Zb8VydPDIc66c=462">reported</a> that Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall is talking to political parties in the European Parliament about how to proceed with the reform and “testing the possibility of only doing comitology (changing annexes) as requested by CEFIC”. It is a remarkable indication of corporate lobby power that CEFIC’s proposal is now under active discussion at the highest political levels.&nbsp;</p> <blockquote><p>Whether REACH is fully re-opened and revised, or amended via comitology, the original public interest ambition of the CSS seems severely at risk</p> </blockquote> <p>The reform of REACH was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to tackle the scourge of harmful chemicals and their impacts on our health and communities. But now the whole project seems stuck between a rock and a hard place. Whether REACH is fully re-opened and revised, or amended via comitology, the original public interest ambition of the CSS seems severely at risk.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>2. Exposing the 2025 REACH lobby battle</strong></h3> <h3><strong>Industry’s intensive lobby access to corporate-friendly Commission</strong></h3> <p>New <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/ZLnKAtAE7kNcMk2">analysis</a> by Corporate Europe Observatory shows that, during 2025, industry lobbied the Commission intensively on the REACH revision and its specific components. Of the high-level Commission meetings<span class="sidenote"><a class="marker" href="javascript:void(0);"><span class="icon--asterisk">&nbsp;</span><span class="visually-hidden">Sidenote</span></a><span class="content">This article has specifically looked at the lobby meetings held by Commissioners and their cabinets during 2025. Also see our methodology at the end of this article.</span></span> held in 2025, industry enjoyed 93 sessions which included a focus on REACH, while NGOs were only granted 19 meetings.&nbsp;</p> <p>Industry also had additional access to the Commission on chemicals matters. Corporate interests managed a further 100 high-level meetings on chemicals policy beyond REACH in 2025: 64 with the chemicals industry, and 36 with the non-chemicals industry. These further meetings covered a variety of issues including PFAS/ forever chemicals, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, and the Chemicals Omnibus.</p> <p>It is perhaps no surprise that of the 93 high-level industry meetings which discussed REACH, <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cefic---european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">CEFIC</a> had the most with 6, alongside trade association <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cosmetics-europe?rid=83575061669-96">Cosmetics Europe</a>, and French cosmetic company <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/lor%C3%A9al?rid=02776221598-67">L’Oréal</a>, both also with 6. <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/american-chamber-of-commerce-to-the-european-union?rid=5265780509-97">AmCham EU</a> (representing US companies in Brussels) and the <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/alliance-for-sustainable-management-of-chemical-risk?rid=181667792087-61">Alliance for Sustainable Management of Chemical Risk</a> (ASMoR, a trade association) had 4 meetings each. German chemical company <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/basf-se?rid=7410939793-88">BASF</a> also had 4 meetings, while US-headquartered chemical company <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/dow-europe?rid=38235121060-73">Dow</a>, German manufacturer <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/henkel-ag--co-kgaa?rid=13635802880-80">Henkel</a>, and French chemical company <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/arkema?rid=35321797057-83">Arkema</a> all had 3 meetings. The full analysis is available <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/ZLnKAtAE7kNcMk2">here</a>. While <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/businesseurope?rid=3978240953-79">BusinessEurope</a> (one of Brussels’ biggest lobbyists) did not join any high-level lobby meetings on REACH in 2025, its <a href="https://www.businesseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2025-07-17-REACH-regulation-paper_BusinessEurope.pdf">position statement</a> largely reflects CEFIC’s approach. BASF and Henkel are among BusinessEurope’s <a href="https://www.businesseurope.eu/about-us/asgroup-our-partner-companies/">“partner companies”</a>.</p> <p>The dominance of industry lobbyists on chemicals policy was further reinforced in several high-level, strategic ‘dialogue’ meetings the Commission organised in 2025, the first in <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/mex_25_872">March</a> with Vice-President for industry Stéphane Séjourné and Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall, and the second in <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/read_25_1198">May</a> with President Ursula von der Leyen. The <a href="https://eeb.org/en_gb/eu-strategic-dialogue-on-chemicals-a-high-level-discussion-highlights-urgent-need-for-transformation-not-deregulation/">latter</a> saw 14 industry representatives <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1197">present</a>, while only two civil society groups and two trade union organisations were invited. The <a href="https://pro.politico.eu/news/196018">former</a> also saw industry outnumber NGOs.</p> <p>What was discussed in industry’s 93 private lobby meetings on REACH? How did industry use these meetings to undermine progressive REACH reform? Below we examine five of the most hotly-contested REACH revision issues, and expose how industry spent 2025 hammering what could be the final nails in the coffin of a revision aimed at tackling harmful chemicals. In addition to the publicly-available minutes of these meetings, we have also analysed written submissions to the April 2025 discussion on the Commission’s REACH proposals held by the its key expert group which advises on the implementation of chemicals rules, <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-groups/consult?lang=en&amp;do=groupDetail.groupDetail&amp;groupID=2385">CARACAL</a> (<a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/meetings/consult?lang=en&amp;meetingId=67750&amp;fromExpertGroups=2385">meeting 54</a>). CARACAL stands for Competent Authorities for REACH and Classification, Labelling and Packaging, and it is attended by member states, industry, and civil society groups.&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-02/REACHing%20Out%20Social%20Media%20v2_Bluesky%202.png?itok=qqW0QchD" width="800" height="450" alt="REACHing out lobby data" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>A chink of light: is all industry opposed to a progressive REACH revision?</strong></h3> <p>Our <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/5tN3Y2CG7C4GiKq">analysis</a> identified a small handful of industry meetings, perhaps 5 out of 93, which appeared to support a more progressive REACH revision. On wider chemicals policy, a particularly noteworthy meeting was a visit to a chemicals start-up in Germany on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/AznXgMgZAH8fjtW">26 May</a> by Vice-President Séjourné. According to the minute of the visit, he was told that this young company which supports <a href="https://www.dudechem.com/">“green chemistry”</a> wished to “support “old” production sites to make their production processes more efficient and sustainable”. The note went on to say that the company “gathered with others” to establish its own association of chemical start-ups, “as they didn’t feel fully represented and heard by existing chemical associations, that represent the big and established players”.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Topic 1: Registration of safety data on polymers - industry cries wolf&nbsp;</strong></h3> <p><strong>A progressive EU REACH reform would bring polymers into the scope of REACH. </strong>There is currently no obligation on industry to report the safety data of polymers to authorities, but as they are <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0667">“the fundamental building blocks of plastics”</a>, the CSS proposed to extend the duty to register to polymers. Once polymers are registered, the most problematic ones can then be identified and further regulatory action could follow. This would require a legislative re-opening of REACH as the current text specifically exempts them.</p> <p>The adviser to the Greens’ political group in the European Parliament, Axel Singhofen, argued forcefully (at a <a href="https://product.enhesa.com/1682226/reach-polymer-registration-would-cost-industry-up-to-40bn-says-cefic-commissioned-report">Chemical Watch conference</a> in October 2025) for the inclusion of polymers in REACH because, as he says, they are “just as pervasive as PFAS. Polymers are used everywhere&nbsp;– in cosmetics, water treatment, food and so on, just as PFAS. Closing our eyes to polymers is like closing our eyes to PFAS [ ... ] and I’m ready to predict that polymers are going to be the new PFAS.” Background information on polymer registration is available <a href="https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/FAQ_PolymerRegistrationFeb2025.pdf">here</a>.</p> <p><strong>Industry has been lobbying intensively to oppose the inclusion of polymers in REACH.</strong> During 2025 CEFIC raised its concerns in meetings with the Commission on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/LE9zQjReNeSa9o9">19 March</a>, <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/axsT9C8mr38g6kc">25 April</a>, <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/r32qkZFG6ydKFEy">28 August</a>, and <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/Q6RSzAoxjjeRPBZ">11 September</a>. <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/basf-se?rid=7410939793-88">BASF</a>, the largest chemical company in the world, which is based in Germany, provides CEFIC’s <a href="https://cefic.org/news/cefic-changes-president-on-1-january-2026/">current president</a>, and often <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/02/crying-wolf">mirrors</a> CEFIC’s lobby positions, has also been very active in raising polymers with decision-makers, including via meetings on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/BXMBdAZKQnjJo6x">23 April</a>, <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/Tj8mZazqie6Q3PW">24 April</a> and <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/JxYr4rTQdzAfP2c">15 May</a>. Other chemical companies have also lobbied on polymers, including <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/dow-europe?rid=38235121060-73">Dow</a> on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/YmBkmiGJBQcyXzo">19 March</a> and <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/arkema?rid=35321797057-83">Arkema</a> on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/WzqL3gAJDM26Y5X">20 May</a>.</p> <p><strong>Industry spin to oppose bringing polymers into the scope of REACH?</strong> <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cefic---european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">CEFIC</a> commissioned a <a href="https://cefic.org/app/uploads/2025/10/Fact-sheet-Registering-Low-Molecular-Weight-Polymers-Costs-Impacts-and-Policy-Implications-under-REACH.pdf">report</a> from consultancy firm Ricardo, which concluded that the costs of polymer registration under REACH would be €30-€50 billion. Yet a previous Commission <a href="https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1cc811ff-d5fc-11ea-adf7-01aa75ed71a1">study</a> had estimated far lower costs of €2.5 billion (with resulting health and environmental benefits of around €30 billion over 40 years). The <a href="https://product.enhesa.com/1682226/reach-polymer-registration-would-cost-industry-up-to-40bn-says-cefic-commissioned-report">difference</a> between the Commission and industry estimates relates to the numbers of polymers tested. The Commission study concluded that 33,000 substances would need to be registered, but only 11,000 of these would need to be tested. By contrast the Ricardo report groups the 146,000 known polymers into 56,000 groups requiring registration, and then assumes that 3 polymers per group need to be tested. This results in a total of 168,000 polymers to be tested; in other words, the ‘grouping’ approach by Ricardo increased the testing requirement, rather than reducing it. Corporate Europe Observatory has previously reported on this recognised lobby tactic to <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/02/crying-wolf">“cry wolf”</a> by throwing eye-catchingly high cost figures into a debate in order to provoke decision-makers’ doubts about a particular policy proposal. CEFIC’s study has certainly given a boost to the industry lobby opposed to polymer registration.&nbsp;</p> <p>Greens advisor Singhofen has <a href="///C:/AppData/Local/Temp/pid-19196/%3E%20https:/product.enhesa.com/1682226/reach-polymer-registration-would-cost-industry-up-to-40bn-says-cefic-commissioned-report">said</a> that industry’s higher figures imply that the sector does not “even have the most basic information about the identity of the polymers and their physical chemical properties” and would need to “start from scratch to assess them”. This is a shocking situation, considering that thousands of different polymers are already manufactured and used across the EU, including in consumer goods.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>To conclude</strong>,<strong> </strong><a href="https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/FAQ_PolymerRegistrationFeb2025.pdf">according</a> to the European Environmental Bureau, industry has successfully delayed the obligation to register polymers under REACH for decades. In order to even start considering whether to regulate harmful polymers, at least a subset of them would need to be registered under REACH. Yet today, as a result of an intense industry lobby, it is decidedly unclear whether this will be part of the Commission’s proposal to revise REACH.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Topic 2: Introduction of Mixture Allocation Factor to tackle the cocktail effect</strong></h3> <p><strong>A progressive EU REACH reform would introduce a Mixture Allocation Factor (MAF) to assess the safety of combinations of chemical substances, as proposed in the </strong><a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:f815479a-0f01-11eb-bc07-01aa75ed71a1.0003.02/DOC_1&amp;format=PDF"><strong>CSS</strong></a><strong>.</strong> This factor is vital because when different chemicals are used together, even in minute concentrations, combined exposures can present a higher risk than exposure to the individual substances. This is called the cocktail effect. Introducing a MAF (which could be done via comitology or a legislative proposal) would help identify potential risks that might otherwise be overlooked. This could simplify the risk evaluation process, ultimately helping to reduce the negative health and environmental impacts associated with exposure to harmful chemicals. More information on the rationale for MAF is available <a href="https://chemtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Mixture-assessment-factor-expert-presentation.pdf?utm_source=Chemicals+Working+Group&amp;utm_campaign=84ca12f4ca-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_12_02_59_COPY_01&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_term=0_038d0aca3d-84ca12f4ca-1209593233">here</a>.</p> <p><strong>Industry has been lobbying intensively to oppose the introduction of a MAF.</strong> <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cefic---european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">CEFIC</a> has <a href="https://cefic.org/app/uploads/2025/02/Cefics-10-Point-Action-to-Simplify-REACH.pdf">argued</a> that it would “impose significant administrative burdens without effectively addressing combined exposures”. It raised MAF in a Commission meeting on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/axsT9C8mr38g6kc">25 April</a>. Downstream users of chemicals have also lobbied on this issue, for example the <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/european-council-of-the-paint-printing-ink-and-artists-colours-industry?rid=47031804648-91">European Council of the Paint, Printing Ink and Artists' Colours Industry</a> (CEPE) on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/Ws4BMDcHJqQ5wRg">21 March</a> and <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/Z8nAcDLwSgzoXWs">5 May</a>, when it argued that “introducing a ‘mixture allocation factor’ would have huge impacts on the sector”, and <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cosmetics-europe?rid=83575061669-96">Cosmetics Europe</a> on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/8JfbmFMrCjm5WH8?dir=/&amp;editing=false&amp;openfile=true">30 September</a>.</p> <p><strong>Industry spin on the inclusion of MAF?</strong> Industry has claimed that MAF is <a href="https://atiel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/UTF-8ATIEL-REACH-revision_comments-for-CARCACAL-April-2025.pdf">“not based on science”</a> and <a href="https://www.feica.eu/our-projects/reach">“non-scientific”</a>. However, in early Summer 2025 leading scientists and over 200 European researchers in environmental science, chemistry, toxicology, and public health, signed a <a href="https://www.su.se/english/divisions/department-of-environmental-science/news/articles/2025-06-25-european-researchers-unite-behind-call-for-stronger-chemical-mixture-regulation-in-reach">letter</a> to Commission leaders calling for the introduction of MAF, “to better protect people and ecosystems from cumulative chemical exposures.” They argued the letter “underscores the urgency and scientific consensus around this issue.”&nbsp;</p> <p>Meanwhile <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cefic---european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">CEFIC</a> commissioned a <a href="https://cefic.org/app/uploads/2024/05/Ricardo-Energy-and-Environment-Economic-Analysis-of-the-Impacts-of-the-Chemicals-Strategy-for-Sustainability-Case-Study-Mixture-Assessment-Factor.pdf">case study</a> on the hypothetical impacts of MAF if it were implemented. Again the study was delivered by the same consultancy company Ricardo, and again it found millions and even billions of euros of potential losses per substance, depending on different scenarios. However, the final lines on page 41 of the <a href="https://cefic.org/app/uploads/2024/05/Ricardo-Energy-and-Environment-Economic-Analysis-of-the-Impacts-of-the-Chemicals-Strategy-for-Sustainability-Case-Study-Mixture-Assessment-Factor.pdf">report</a> notably say: “By design, these conclusions do not provide any insights into the balance of economic, environmental and social impacts, nor the social costs and benefits of the proposed interventions.” This indicates that the full cost-benefit analysis on MAF might look rather different if the positive impacts on health and environment were included. This is another <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023/11/sabotaging-eu-pesticide-reduction-law-sur">common industry tactic</a>, to only assess and emphasise industry costs, rather than also factoring in the wider societal benefits of a proposed policy.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>To conclude</strong>, as far back as 2012 the Commission <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0252">identified</a> that “current EU legislation does not provide for a comprehensive and integrated assessment of cumulative effects of different chemicals taking into account different routes of exposure.” This has not changed and it is long overdue for REACH to remedy this absence. But will the Commission finally tackle the cocktail effect, or will it bow to the loud voices of industry lobbyists who prefer business as usual?</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Topic 3: Extension of Generic Approach to Risk Management, to remove toxic chemicals from consumer goods</strong></h3> <p><strong>A progressive EU REACH reform would rapidly extend the Generic Approach to Risk Management (also known as GRA or GARM).</strong> The GRA approach, set out in the original REACH, is a fast-track mechanism to get harmful substances out of consumer products. It’s long <a href="https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/document/download/4bea0b27-8e98-48c5-9224-fb9b8f2e99c1_en?filename=Restrictions%20Roadmap_amendment_2025.pdf">overdue</a> for GRA to be used to remove chemicals classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic (causing genetic damage), or toxic for reproduction (reprotoxic) from childcare articles. It is shocking to think that toxic chemicals are used in items such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/oct/18/chemical-linked-impaired-sexual-development-found-dummies-tests?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other">babies’ pacifiers</a>, and a good example of why we need to urgently scale up the removal of such substances from all consumer goods. An extension would broaden GRA to include other types of harmful chemicals. The 2020 CSS also <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:f815479a-0f01-11eb-bc07-01aa75ed71a1.0003.02/DOC_1&amp;format=PDF">indicated</a> that GRA should also be extended to cover not only consumer products but also professional uses. This would require a legislative proposal.</p> <p>However by 2022 it was clear that the Commission was already weakening its ambition on GRA. The <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023/07/out-reach">heavily-redacted</a> first version of the REACH revision impact assessment revealed that the Commission’s approach had already been substantially diluted. It was considering a range of scenarios which would only cover 1 per cent, 10 per cent, or 50 per cent of consumer products containing the most harmful chemicals, representing a <a href="https://eeb.org/european-citizens-alarmingly-high-chemical-exposure/">“drastic scale back”</a> from the original promise. This is notwithstanding that information from the redacted part of the impact assessment, privately seen by the European Environmental Bureau, <a href="https://eeb.org/en/european-citizens-alarmingly-high-chemical-exposure/">showed</a> that even with these weak plans, the direct costs to the chemical industry of banning the most harmful chemicals from consumer and professional products would be offset 10 times over by human health benefits. More information on the GRA is available <a href="https://chemtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Fast-track-restriction-for-the-most-harmful-chemicals-expert-presentation.pdf?utm_source=Chemicals+Working+Group&amp;utm_campaign=84ca12f4ca-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_12_02_59_COPY_01&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_term=0_038d0aca3d-84ca12f4ca-1209593233">here</a>.</p> <p><strong>Industry has lobbied to oppose the extension of GRA.</strong> On <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/LE9zQjReNeSa9o9">19 March</a> last year, according to the published notes of the lobby meeting, <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cefic---european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">CEFIC</a> “cautioned against extension of application of general risk assessment” to a member of Roswall’s Cabinet, and repeated almost identical messaging to the same official just a <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/axsT9C8mr38g6kc">month later</a>. Other industry voices opposing the extension have been many and varied. On <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/Fk4cs5TpSaxnfEH">22 May</a> “no GRA extension” was part of a much longer list of REACH demands presented by the <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/downstream-users-of-chemicals-co-ordination-group?rid=70941697936-72">Downstream Users of Chemicals Co-ordination Group</a> (DUCC, which represents cosmetics, detergents, aerosols, and paint etc industries) to Commissioner Roswall.</p> <p>The cosmetics industry has been one of the most prominent opponents of the extension of GRA, as seen in <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cosmetics-europe?rid=83575061669-96">Cosmetics Europe’s</a> meetings with Roswall’s Cabinet on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/CwH9qckPXb4gNkm">24 March</a> and <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/8JfbmFMrCjm5WH8">30 September</a>. One of its most active members, French cosmetics company <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/lor%C3%A9al?rid=02776221598-67">L’Oréal</a>, told Vice-President Séjourné that it was concerned about GRA on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/pnpiqYDA9ykYXLX">16 May</a>. Others voicing concern have included <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/alliance-for-sustainable-management-of-chemical-risk?rid=181667792087-61">Alliance for Sustainable Management of Chemical R</a>isk (ASMoR) on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/FcWHeafjEKrxxBr">15 April</a> and the European Council of the Paint, Printing Ink, and Artist’s Colours Industry (<a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/european-council-of-the-paint-printing-ink-and-artists-colours-industry?rid=47031804648-91">CEPE</a>) on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/Z8nAcDLwSgzoXWs">5 May</a>. Meanwhile German manufacturer <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/henkel-ag--co-kgaa?rid=13635802880-80">Henkel</a> told Séjourné’s Cabinet on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/emZGFqBbDqdGr99">16 April</a> that “elements like Mixture Allocation Factor, the generic risk assessment and polymers’ registration would limit product performance, undermine competitiveness, and divert proactive R&amp;D to defensive R&amp;D.”</p> <p><strong>Industry spin on the extension of GRA?</strong> In April 2025, as part of the written consultation on the Commission’s updated REACH reform proposal presented at the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/meetings/consult?lang=en&amp;meetingId=67750&amp;fromExpertGroups=2385">54^th CARACAL</a> meeting, <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/european-council-of-the-paint-printing-ink-and-artists-colours-industry?rid=47031804648-91">CEPE</a> apparently <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/B5Gdqpx484Kz6GJ">told</a> the Commission that “as long as the GRA is a blanket ban and does not include any formal process to take into account socio-economic impacts, risk or alternative considerations, unexpected and disproportional impacts cannot be ruled out.” But this was inaccurate ‒ GRA is not a blanket ban, and it does allow for exemptions. Similarly the <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/european-apparel-and-textile-confederation?rid=7824139202-85">European Apparel and Textile Confederation</a> (Euratex) <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/fPpMkNWicJC3sWG">wrote</a>: “the PFAS example is the perfect illustration that the GRA-based ban does not adequately allow for exemptions particularly in professional uses or technical applications”. But again this was misleading ‒ the <a href="https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/perfluoroalkyl-chemicals-pfas">universal PFAS restriction</a> is not “GRA-based” and it does allow for exemptions. The <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/european-plastics-converters-association?rid=93255296152-29">European Plastic Converters Association</a> (EUPC) <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/7Dw4y7eX7EKQpwy">told</a> CARACAL that “the PFAs [sic] mega dossier has shown that such an approach actually does not result in more efficient regulation, a meaningful use of Authority limited resource and eventually a timely action for the protection of human health or the environment.” This is another misrepresentation of the proposed universal PFAS restriction which is moving comparatively quickly (despite a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/chemical-reaction">coordinated deluge</a> of industry submissions against it), and aims to regulate a group of up to 10,000 different forever chemicals together, rather than one by one which would be impossibly slow.</p> <p><strong>To conclude</strong>, extending GRA would be an effective way of scaling up the removal of the most harmful chemicals from the products that we use on a day to day basis, to reduce public exposure. But today, industry voices once again appear to dominate this debate. Even if the Commission ultimately opts to revise REACH by legislative proposal, it is not at all clear that this will include any extension of GRA.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Topic 4: Implementation of Essential Use Concept to remove unnecessary harmful chemicals&nbsp;</strong></h3> <p><strong>A progressive EU REACH reform would implement the Essential Use Concept (EUC), to run alongside the extension of GRA (discussed above) which would help to get harmful chemicals out of consumer goods.</strong> The EUC would mean that harmful chemicals are only allowed if, firstly, their use is necessary for health, safety, or is critical for the functioning of society, and, secondly, if there are no acceptable alternatives from the standpoint of environment and health. The EUC and GRA are sometimes described as ‘hazard-based’ approaches to chemicals regulation, because they give weight to the intrinsic hazardous properties of a substance. The EUC is also associated with the ‘precautionary principle’ and applying the EUC would make it much easier for regulators to ban non-essential uses of chemicals in everyday products. In April 2024 the Commission <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C_202402894">published</a> its “guiding principles and criteria” on the EUC, but the concept of essential use is yet to be embedded in legislation such as REACH, nor put into practice.</p> <p><strong>Industry has been lobbying hard to oppose the implementation of the EUC</strong> and, as <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/01/how-essential-are-hazardous-substances">reported</a> by Corporate Europe Observatory in January 2024, has been promoting its alternative concept of ‘safe use’, alongside the idea that there are whole products and sectors which are “<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2023-12/6.Key%20Points%20Meeting%20with%20Cosmetics%20Europe%20Delegation%2013.10.2022.pdf">essential</a>”. At the heart of the ‘safe use’ lobby is <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/alliance-for-sustainable-management-of-chemical-risk?rid=181667792087-61">ASMoR</a> (the Alliance for Sustainable Management of Chemical Risk) a body whose 34 <a href="https://wordpress-1471990-5566126.cloudwaysapps.com/members/">members</a> include the bromine, nickel, fuels, ceramic, fragrance, and automobile industries. The alliance was set up to <a href="https://asmor.eu/">campaign</a> on its “common goal to ensure that safe uses of hazardous substances remain permitted”. ‘Safe use’ is sometimes described as a ‘risk-based’ approach, since it is based on the assumption that regardless of the hazard of a chemical, the focus should be on exposure to it.</p> <p>ASMoR has pushed back against essential use and promoted ‘safe use’ instead, including at meetings on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/ooETTJxE3sMj93q">24 February</a>, <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/FcWHeafjEKrxxBr">15 April</a> and <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/HHWbPS99gejpBmR">8 May</a>. On <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/gTeAEcsCPxZ4qkA">10 April</a> US chemicals company <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/emerson-electric-co?rid=499582651306-69">Emerson</a> argued for a “risk-based approach and explained that in their view the notion of essential use had shortcomings”, comments echoed by paint producer <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/ppg-industries-inc?rid=064309946772-86">PPG Industries</a> on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/3G6rML388YAmEgp">7 May</a>. Interestingly <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cefic---european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">CEFIC</a> does not appear to have prioritised opposing the EUC in the past year, even though in a November 2022 lobby meeting the EUC was <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2024-01/34_Ares%282023%29855072%205210%20CAB_Notes%2Bfrom%2Bmeeting%2BSinkevicius%2Band%2BCEFIC%2B2022.11.18_Redacted.pdf">listed</a> as one of its five main concerns about the REACH revision.</p> <p><strong>Industry spin on the implementation of essential use?</strong> According to industry logic, existing hazardous substances should continue to be used in everyday consumer goods so long as they can be shown to be ‘safe’. But this is a very misleading argument. ‘Safe use’ is pretty much the system we have today, which is clearly not sufficiently protective. Currently we can find harmful chemicals in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/oct/18/chemical-linked-impaired-sexual-development-found-dummies-tests?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other">babies’ pacifiers</a> and other childcare articles, ‘forever chemicals’ / PFAS in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0109-y">dental floss</a>, and known carcinogens in <a href="https://chemsec.org/reports/lost-at-sea/">lipstick lids</a>, to give just a few examples. ‘Safe use’ would be a licence to carry-on contaminating.</p> <p><strong>To conclude</strong>, the implementation of the EUC is a necessary part of an effective REACH revision, especially when introduced alongside the GRA extension. Legislative change is necessary to ensure it is included in REACH and other chemicals legislation (for example those governing cosmetics and toys) where it would also be highly relevant. However at the time of writing, it is not clear that the Commission plans to do anything further to progress and implement the guidance it published two years ago.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-02/REACHing%20Out%20Social%20Media%20v2_Bluesky%203.png?itok=D5zXT2Ir" width="800" height="450" alt="REACHing out topics" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>So far we have highlighted four areas where industry has been fighting back against the progressive proposals made in the CSS, which were originally to be included in an ambitious REACH revision. There are some other areas where <a href="https://cefic.org//app/uploads/2025/02/Cefics-10-Point-Action-to-Simplify-REACH.pdf">industry</a> and <a href="https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Future-Proof-EU-Chemicals-Policy-1.pdf">civil society</a> objectives broadly align, such as better enforcement of the REACH rules including for the import of chemicals, and greater digitalisation of the regulatory processes. But of course industry also has an offensive agenda, a key element of which is examined below. Worryingly one of industry’s favourite demands seems to be rapidly moving up the REACH reform agenda.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <h3><strong>Topic 5: Regulatory Management Options Analysis – industry-favoured approach to weaken and delay action</strong></h3> <p><strong>A progressive EU REACH reform would not include the formalisation of Regulatory Management Options Analysis (RMOA).</strong> According to a <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/LXpNa4yG4YNHXxk">position paper</a> by <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/cefic---european-chemical-industry-council?rid=64879142323-90">CEFIC</a>, RMOA is an “upfront analysis of regulatory options”, to address any identified concerns regarding a substance. In practice RMOA is already widely used by member states but it was not included in the original REACH, nor in the CSS. However, industry-friendly DG GROW advocated for RMOA to become mandatory back in 2020, which would introduce an additional upfront filter for EU regulatory action and likely reduce and/or delay action, while increasing industry’s scope to influence decision-making.</p> <p>By supporting a formalised RMOA, industry might hope to delegate decisions on chemicals to legal frameworks which are weaker than REACH. For example, in <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/LXpNa4yG4YNHXxk">CEFIC’s paper on RMOA</a> it argues that the regulation of harmful chemicals should firstly consider options via occupational safety and health legislation, and the Industrial Emissions Directive. But the options available under these laws are much weaker than those in REACH, and the latter is about emissions reduction not toxicity. According to <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/LXpNa4yG4YNHXxk">CEFIC’s proposal</a>, only if these other rules are “not considered to be sufficient to prevent unacceptable risk”, would complementary measures via a REACH restriction be imposed.&nbsp;</p> <p>There is also a high chance that the formalisation of RMOA could lead to the disempowerment of member states by reducing the number of restriction proposals, and by creating additional procedures to reduce the throughput of substance-specific regulation. This would be highly concerning because <a href="https://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-restriction-intentions?p_p_id=disslists_WAR_disslistsportlet&amp;p_p_lifecycle=1&amp;p_p_state=normal&amp;p_p_mode=view&amp;_disslists_WAR_disslistsportlet_javax.portlet.action=searchDissLists">more than half</a> of all restrictions have been initiated by member states rather than the Commission. Besides, member states already discuss regulatory options for different substances, so no additional procedure is needed. It’s worth noting that in its response to the CSS in March 2021, the Council of Ministers <a href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/48827/st06941-en21.pdf">said</a> that any changes made to REACH should not weaken it, “nor lower the level of protection already accomplished, or affect the rights of Member States to initiate and influence actions” [emphasis added].&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Industry, however, has been lobbying to promote the formalisation of RMOA.</strong> Trade association <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/alliance-for-sustainable-management-of-chemical-risk?rid=181667792087-61">ASMoR</a> on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/ooETTJxE3sMj93q">24 February</a> told a member of the Roswall cabinet that it was “in favour of a formalised stepwise risk-management option analysis including an early screening of exposure and safe use.” Minutes of a meeting on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/HHWbPS99gejpBmR">8 May</a> with ASMoR show that a member of the von der Leyen cabinet was told “instead of adopting a hazard-based approach, ASMoR suggested the implementation of the Risk Management Option Analysis (RMOA) for assessing chemicals.” The written submissions made to the April 2025 CARACAL discussion on the REACH revision proposal show that <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/J89yAgdMRPsAXJY">CEFIC</a>, <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/6b2rBsFFdsnjafE">AmCham</a>, <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/QE66jmLXdMQiRSb">A.I.S.E.</a> (detergents trade association), <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/B5Gdqpx484Kz6GJ">CEPE</a>, and <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/c8JTPSZBcZHt8m9">ETRMA</a> (tyre and rubber manufacturers) were among the organisations promoting a formalised RMOA.</p> <p><strong>To conclude</strong>, at the April 2025 <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/meetings/consult?lang=en&amp;meetingId=67750&amp;fromExpertGroups=2385">CARACAL meeting</a>, the Commission included a proposal to incorporate an upfront, formalised RMOA in the REACH revision. Industry must be feeling increasingly confident that this tool of theirs will feature in the REACH reform.&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>Conclusion: it’s long overdue to challenge hazardous chemicals lobbyists’ conflicts of interest</strong></h3> <p>Clarity on the Commission’s approach to REACH reform is expected imminently, although the precise form it will take, and the timetable, are not clear. Commissioner Roswall was recently <a href="https://www.endseurope.com/article/1945605/reach-revision-doubt-roswall-mulls-ways-move-forward">quoted</a> by <em>ENDS Europe</em> as saying: “we are in discussion on what we need to do and how can we do that [with] the view that we need to have a legislation that is fit for purpose but also seeing to it that we have a chemical industry … I try not to do dates, because I don't have dates… we are in discussions.”</p> <p>As the evidence presented here shows, there has been intense industry lobbying, including during 2025, using the old lobby classics of spin ‒ eye-catchingly high industry costings, ignoring health and environmental benefits, undermining science, and misleading claims about how progressive proposals would work ‒ to make the REACH reform as industry-friendly as possible. The indications are that corporate interests have been heard loud and clear by sympathetic audiences in this pro-deregulation Commission. As a result it is not at all clear how well the Commission’s 2020 <a href="https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/chemicals-strategy_en">CSS ambition</a> to “better protect<strong> </strong>citizens and the environment” will fare in the current political context. And it’s highly disappointing that the Commission doesn’t recognise that a strong REACH which encourages EU industry to introduce safer chemicals faster would provide a real added-value competitive advantage.&nbsp;</p> <blockquote><p>The indications are that corporate interests have been heard loud and clear by sympathetic audiences in this pro-deregulation Commission</p> </blockquote> <p>Today the REACH reform is between a rock and a hard place. A legislative proposal could potentially introduce progressive, and long promised, policies ‒ such as speeding up the removal of harmful chemicals from consumer products (via Generic Approach to Risk Management and Essential Use) and action to tackle problematic polymers. But it could also weaken the right of member states to make proposals for restrictions (formalised Regulatory Management Options Analysis). Its journey through the turbulent Parliament and Council would be unpredictable, and could even leave REACH fundamentally weaker than before. Such an outcome would be the opposite of the original intention of the proposed reform.</p> <p>But the comitology route is also fraught with risk. It could address the ‘cocktail effect’ (via the Mixture Allocation Factor), but could also be used to deliver some of industry’s wider demands.</p> <p>Whichever route is chosen, the most important factor will be the objective of the revision, whether it is to help industry, including to sell more harmful chemicals, or to improve our collective health and the environment. Civil society is clear that it must be the latter, with the 2020 Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability remaining the guiding framework for the Commission’s actions on chemicals policy and REACH reform. Several of the Commission’s Omnibus proposals already plan to weaken REACH (<a href="https://www.etuc.org/en/pressrelease/defending-europe-means-defending-labour-and-environmental-law">defence omnibus</a>) or other chemicals policies (<a href="https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/simplification-certain-requirements-and-procedures-chemical-products_en">chemicals omnibus</a> on labelling, cosmetics, and fertilisers) and must be opposed. There should be no deregulation of chemicals rules via omnibuses.&nbsp;</p> <p>Considering the privileged access and spin evidenced here, as well as the chemicals industry’s <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/pollution-playbook">long history</a> of undermining science to weaken or derail regulation, it’s overdue for decision-makers to avoid interactions with the promoters of hazardous chemicals, especially lobby meetings such as those analysed in this article. These lobbies have significant financial conflicts of interest which contradict and undermine the wider public interest of promoting and protecting health and the environment. The chemical industry and its allies must be challenged at every step.</p> <p><em><strong>It is not too late to have your voice heard. Take action to </strong></em><a href="https://action.wemove.eu/sign/2024-01-ban-forever-chemicals-EN"><em><strong>support</strong></em></a><em><strong> a Toxic-free Europe now, by demanding an ambitious, progressive REACH revision.</strong></em></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3><strong>A note on our methodology</strong></h3> <p>This article is based on <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/ZLnKAtAE7kNcMk2">analysis</a> of the publicly-disclosed 2025 lobby meetings (as of 16 December 2025) of Commission President <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=a2c7c963-a9ad-4c47-aa73-4bb46b06dd5d">von der Leyen</a> and her <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=9fd4662a-8580-4cee-bb3f-3c2fba5c12c6">Cabinet</a>; Vice-President <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=d8fba42d-8cc3-42c8-b1f1-e07d9b2ee8ea">Séjourné</a> and his <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=21deeb50-48f9-40a3-9ab0-ac66cdbb2ca2">Cabinet</a>; Environment Commissioner <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=2fabcec5-6930-4cd6-8e08-ac24ff31b8c2">Roswall</a> and her <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=eb5313ef-18a0-4c99-a216-5fe983e8eaf9">Cabinet</a>; and Deregulation Commissioner <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=e10e2599-a47f-41db-b571-9c8ed0696f93">Dombrovskis</a> and his <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=8e3988b4-1258-4448-add5-000bbe0c2848">Cabinet</a>. A meeting was considered to concern REACH if that term was mentioned in the subject matter or in the minutes, or if polymers, MAF, GRA, EUC, risk/hazard-based approaches, or RMOA were mentioned. The minutes analysed were of varied quality, and so the figures provided could be underestimates. While the Commission’s template for reporting minutes includes a section on “main points raised and positions expressed”, this is often not adequately completed. Overall we have a major concern that the extension of proactive transparency via the publication of minutes (rather than just a list of meetings held) which commenced in January 2025 is not being taken seriously by all officials. It is troubling that the important public duty to be fully transparent about contact with lobbyists has been reduced to a basic paperwork exercise which, in too many cases, sheds very little light on what actually happened in the meeting.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">11.02.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/revealed-industrys-lobby-blitz-undermine-chemicals-policy-reform" hreflang="en">Revealed: industry’s lobby blitz to undermine chemicals policy reform</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">10.02.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/trade-union-and-ngo-coalition-calls-out-corporate-shadow-roadmap-dictating-eu-agenda" hreflang="en">Trade union and NGO coalition calls out corporate "shadow roadmap" dictating EU agenda</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">24.05.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/05/dissecting-antwerp-declaration" hreflang="en">Dissecting the Antwerp Declaration</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">20.02.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/02/crying-wolf-win-chemicals-lobby-antwerp-eu-meeting" hreflang="en">'Crying wolf' win for chemicals lobby at Antwerp EU meeting</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">19.02.2024</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/02/crying-wolf" hreflang="en">Crying wolf pays off for chemicals industry</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Tue, 10 Feb 2026 23:01:00 +0000 Vicky Cann 2306 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/trade-union-and-ngo-coalition-calls-out-corporate-shadow-roadmap-dictating-eu-agenda <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">10.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p id="docs-internal-guid-d1e55f35-7fff-6862-cfe9-9faaf00f7d0e" dir="ltr">A coalition of major civil society and trade union organisations has issued a&nbsp;joint declaration to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, stating that the EU Commission is prioritising a "shadow roadmap" of industry-led deregulation over democratic and environmental safeguards. Von der Leyen this week will meet with chemical industry lobby group CEFIC, just before an informal retreat at a Belgian castle for EU heads of state, where a new suite of "competitiveness" deregulation measures is at the top of the agenda. In a joint declaration, the coalition, which includes Friends of the Earth Europe, Corporate Europe Observatory, and Transparency International EU, denounces a "recurring pattern" of privileged access for corporate interests.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p id="docs-internal-guid-90dbb2d3-7fff-4466-f415-ceee43c57ebf"><strong>The text of the joint declaration reads:</strong></p> <p dir="ltr">Tomorrow, President von der Leyen will convene again with hundreds of corporate representatives during an event organised by CEFIC, a powerful lobby group for Europe’s chemical industry, just hours before meeting with EU heads of state. This recurring pattern of exclusive engagement raises a fundamental question: is European policy being shaped by its 450 million citizens, or by the continent’s largest industrial lobbies? The timing also gives industry a privileged opportunity to feed its demands directly into the EU heads of state summit on Competitiveness taking place the following day. The rollback threatens to intensify after this summit which will discuss a suite of deregulation proposals, most of which come straight from industry.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">Since 2024, the&nbsp;<a href="https://antwerp-declaration.eu/">Antwerp Declaration&nbsp;</a>has acted as a shadow roadmap for the European Union. What is framed as something that will boost the economy has increasingly become a vehicle for dismantling the EU’s democratic safeguards. We are witnessing a systematic rollback of vital climate, environmental and social protections—hard-won progress now being traded for corporate concessions behind closed doors. So far, the EU has delivered fast and hard&nbsp;<strong>for polluters, rights-abusing corporations and shareholders, but not for people</strong>.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">The Commission has even undermined its own procedural safeguards, failing to provide impact assessments and credible scientific or economic evidence for key proposals, and neglecting meaningful consultation processes. When the European Ombudsman raised concerns, the Commission’s response was not to correct its approach, but to weaken its own better-regulation rules.</p> <p dir="ltr">At the same time, industry lobbying has unlocked billions in public subsidies, justified by claims of economic crisis and capital shortages that have since proven to be vastly overstated. Many of these same companies continue to prioritise short-term shareholder payouts over investing in a just and sustainable transition.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">Framing democratic rules as obstacles to growth fuels a dangerous race to the bottom, where the most harmful industries are rewarded with weaker rules and more public funding, while people face austerity and declining protections.</p> <p dir="ltr">We<em>&nbsp;</em>reject this corporate-led deregulation agenda. Europe’s industrial and economic strategy must strengthen — not sacrifice — environmental integrity, social justice, human rights and democratic accountability. Strong standards are not a burden — they are the foundation of Europe’s long-term economic resilience. Public money and political power must serve society as a whole, not entrench the influence and profits of the industries most responsible for the crises we face.</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>To defend the public’s rights to health, to a livable environment and to decent working conditions, we say we need:</strong></p> <h2><strong>Rules to protect democracy, people and planet</strong></h2> <ol> <li dir="ltr"><strong>Re-vitalise European democracy</strong></li> </ol> <p dir="ltr">The second Von der Leyen Commission’s focus on competitiveness is reflected in its more intensive contact with corporate actors: 40% of meetings of Commissioners’ cabinet members were with company representatives, 29% with business associations, and only 16% with NGOs. This imbalance risks policy capture.&nbsp; In addition, the Commission has created new spaces, such as “Reality Check Workshops” and “Implementation Dialogues”, that are set up in an untransparent manner and further reinforce this imbalance, opening up new avenues for corporate influence.</p> <p dir="ltr">Civil society organisations, NGOs, environmental organisations, trade unions and academia, as key representatives of the public interest, must be heard, protected, and given meaningful access to decision-making.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">The EU’s current deregulation agenda reflects corporate lobbying more than the priorities of ordinary people: addressing the cost of living, ensuring strong public services, and taking decisive action on the climate, biodiversity, and pollution crises. Lawmaking must not be steered by the very industries responsible for pollution, climate harm, discrimination, unlawful processing of sensitive data, mass surveillance and other harms. These safeguards cannot be dismantled to satisfy the demands of the most polluting and risky sectors.</p> <p dir="ltr">Instead of shrinking civic space and sidelining public voices, the EU must strengthen democratic participation.&nbsp;</p> <ol start="2"> <li dir="ltr"><strong>Rules exist to protect the public</strong></li> </ol> <p dir="ltr">People across the EU are increasingly exposed to forever chemicals (PFAS), pesticide pollution and more frequent extreme weather. This generates huge costs to society, both economically and in terms of wellbeing. Instead of more “omnibuses” that undermine protections, we need better and stronger rules to ensure access to clean water, air, and food, guarantee safer workplaces, safeguard our privacy and personal data online, and protect us from risky applications of AI.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">People do not want toxic chemicals in their bodies, unsafe working conditions, polluted food and drinking water, or constant online tracking. Children should be able to play in parks without exposure to harmful substances like PFAS and families should not find forever chemicals (TFA) in their meals due to deregulated pesticides legislation.&nbsp;</p> <ol start="3"> <li dir="ltr"><strong>No blank cheque for polluting industries</strong></li> </ol> <p dir="ltr">Polluting industries are paying nosebleed dividends to shareholders, year-in year-out. From 2010 to 2023, European firms in key energy transition sectors generated €2.1 trillion in net profit and distributed €1.6 trillion to shareholders—a staggering 75.3% of their total net profits (and about 40% of Germany’s GDP, for comparison). They do not need extra capital injections paid by taxpayers, who face cuts to healthcare, education, and climate action. The problem is not a lack of capital — it is a misallocation of existing resources. We should invest in a future-oriented, toxic- free and decarbonised economy, not prop up toxic-fossil-intensive sectors resisting the energy and toxic-free transition. Finally, polluting companies should bear the costs of harm caused by their products, not society, respecting the Polluter Pays Principle.</p> <ol start="4"> <li dir="ltr"><em><strong>A new spirit of law-making</strong></em><strong> should be evidence-based law-making</strong></li> </ol> <p dir="ltr">Omnibus packages are dismantling crucial protections without scientific evidence or proper impact assessments. Proposals are short-sighted, industry-driven, and ignore their effects on people and the planet. Lawmaking must be evidence-based and safeguard health, rights, the environment, and Europe’s long-term sustainability goals. Basing laws on the immediate demands of profit-driven industries — often the very ones responsible for pollution, exploitation, techno-driven discrimination and the climate crisis — is fundamentally misguided.</p> <p dir="ltr">Instead, EU lawmaking should be grounded in solid evidence, expert advice, and the voices of the most impacted communities. Civil society organisations, NGOs, environmental organisations and trade unions, scientists, and independent experts must guide decision-making, ensuring policies serve people and the planet — not just a handful of polluting and energy-intensive companies.</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Signed by:</strong></p> <p dir="ltr">Friends of the Earth Europe<br>The Good Lobby<br>EPSU (European Public Service Union)<br>ClientEarth<br>Corporate Europe Observatory<br>EEB (European Environmental Bureau)<br>Transparency International EU<br>CAN Europe<br>foodwatch<br>Beelife<br>and other organisations<br>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-02/1769070900603.jpg?itok=BZgoILFw" width="800" height="600" alt="Omnibus harms people's rights" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Open Letter, Pro-regulation Declaration.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/Open%20Letter%2C%20Pro-regulation%20Declaration.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Open Letter, Pro-regulation Declaration.pdf</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Tue, 10 Feb 2026 08:00:00 +0000 Nina Holland 2307 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/addicted-algorithm-0 <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> How Big Tech lobbies to keep us hooked on social media </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">05.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/digital" hreflang="en">Tech</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><em>As the EU prepares the Digital Fairness Act (DFA) to tackle the addictive nature of social media design, big tech companies are coming together to aggressively protect their business models. With Trumpists and far-right allies likely to join the chorus against the DFA, the Commission’s own drive for deregulation at all costs is not helping the chances of strong legislation.</em></p> <p>You’ve certainly experienced it: you grab your phone to do something specific, and end up getting lost in the maze of stimuli – sounds, colours, videos, notifications, urgent messages –so much so that you forget why you picked up the phone in the first place and stay far longer on it than planned. We keep inventing new words to describe aspects of the experience, whether it’s doomscrolling, internet rabbit holes, or brainrot. The good news is, this isn’t just something that happens to you. There’s a growing political consensus that this is a structural problem by design, that Big Tech has gone too far, and EU legislation is on the way to give you more control over addictive features in social media apps. The bad news is, Big Tech has begun a full scale lobbying battle against this legislation.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>As the European Commission is preparing rules to rein in the addictive design of social media app –­ as part of the forthcoming Digital Fairness Act – the tech industry is drawing on its considerable lobbying firepower to oppose it. The legislation comes in response to growing concerns about the public health impacts of social media addiction, both for children, adolescents, and adults alike. But the Big Tech giants behind Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and other social media apps are pushing back. Keeping people on the apps for as long as possible is a central part of their business model and restrictions in addictive features would hurt their profits and power. In its lobbying, Big Tech aims to capitalize on the fact that EU decision-makers – with Commission President von der Leyen in the lead – are currently heavily prioritising industrial competitiveness via deregulation over other concerns. This means there are major new obstacles for legislation to pass.</p> <h2><strong>Why legislation is needed to rein in addictive design</strong></h2> <p lang="en-GB">Social media addiction is reaching new peaks, with serious health impacts for large parts of the world’s population, not the least for children and young people. The average teen in the US now spends 4.8 hours per day on social media. In Europe, 97 per cent of young people go online every day and 78 per cent of 13 to 17 year olds check their devices at least once per hour. One quarter of minors display ‘problematic’ or ‘dysfunctional’ smartphone use. Both for minors and grownups, <a href="https://peoplevsbig.tech/briefing-protecting-children-and-young-people-from-addictive-design/">excessive screen time and social media use</a> has been shown to cause neurological harm (including reduced attention span and impulse control), psychological harm (anxiety, depression, self-harm, etc) and physical harm (reduced sleep and physical activity). Studies show they can also lead to <a href="https://archive.is/gBAMg">premature cognitive decline</a> in adults. As <em>The Economist</em> <a href="https://www.economist.com/1843/2016/10/20/the-scientists-who-make-apps-addictive">highlighted already a decade ago</a>, “Silicon Valley’s most successful tech companies use the insights of behaviour design to pump us with dopamine and keep us returning to their products”.</p> <blockquote><p>Social media platforms learned techniques from gambling companies to keep users hooked</p> </blockquote> <p>Tech critic, journalist, and podcast host <a href="https://disconnect.blog/social-media-must-be-reined-in/">Paris Marx has pointed out</a> that “social media platforms learned techniques from gambling companies to keep users hooked by using likes, notifications, and other methods to entice people to keep coming back, triggering dopamine responses that their brains craved even if the platforms made them feel worse at the same time.” <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2505.00054">Michelle Nie</a>, at the time working at the Open Markets Institute, highlights that “one main strategy to capture user attention and encourage addiction are interaction-based recommender systems, in particular personalized systems that are designed to keep users on the platform as long as possible, consume more advertisements, and generate maximum profits for tech companies." And things are getting worse, Nie points out, as “Big Tech has exponentially increased both the sophistication of their AI algorithms and the amount of proprietary data they collect on their users, which leads to exponential advances in the accuracy of recommender systems and their ability to hyper-personalize social media products”.&nbsp;</p> <p>Public awareness about the dangers of social media addiction reached new levels in 2021 when <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043207218/whistleblower-to-congress-facebook-products-harm-children-and-weaken-democracy">whistleblower Frances Haugen leaked internal Facebook research and communications</a> showing the company was aware of the serious problems caused by its platforms, including the grave risks of Instagram to the mental health of teenage girls. Facebook internal research leaked by Haugen showed that 13.5 per cent of teen girls said Instagram use worsens suicidal thoughts and 17 per cent of teen girls said Instagram contributes to their eating disorders.&nbsp;</p> <p>In addition to serious public health problems, addictive design consolidates the economic and political power of, and our societal dependency on, US tech giants. Addiction increases time spent on platforms beyond what people would actually prefer, which boosts data collection and advertising income for Big Tech. By using addictive design to boost user attention, Big Tech crowds out alternative forms of communication and information, at the expense of potential new competitors in social media markets, traditional media, and others. Addictive design also accelerates the concentration of attention in – and dependency on – a few giant platforms with excessive levels of power and control over digital interaction and information flows.&nbsp;</p> <blockquote><p lang="en-GB">Addictive design consolidates the economic and political power of, and our societal dependency on, US tech giants</p> </blockquote> <h2><strong>Anti-addictive design is possible</strong></h2> <p>The solution is clear: we need legislation to rein in what social media platforms are allowed to do. “Countries should consider regulating digital devices like smartphones in a similar way to tobacco products, to combat social media's rising negative impact on young people's mental health”, the <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/education-stronger-regulation-protect-kids-social-media-misuse-smartphones-who-ban-addiction/">World Health Organization’s Natasha Azzopardi Muscat told <em>Politico</em></a>. “Anti-addictive design legislation”, Michelle Nie explains, “could include provisions requiring social media platforms to turn off attention-seeking features by default, to implement pagination instead of scrolling by default, demoting harmful or addictive content, and promoting and prioritizing alternative recommender systems based on chronological order or increased user control. These remedies, if implemented, would offer a healthier ‘content diet’ that is less likely to be addictive.” Political awareness is growing fast and last year several countries decided to ban social media for children under 16. Australia’s law took effect in December 2025, with Malaysia and France likely following soon, and Norway and other countries considering bans too. Such bans are clearly not the full solutions as they <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2026/01/26/social-media-age-bans-toxic-business-model/">leave other age groups unprotected</a> from the harms of addictive social media, but it shows the EU must act fast or risk lagging behind.&nbsp;</p> <p>Existing EU digital legislation, such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) does not address addictive design directly. It’s on this basis that the European Commission in 2024 decided to prepare a Digital Fairness Act, with tackling addictive design as one of the priorities.</p> <h2><strong>The Commission’s forthcoming proposal</strong></h2> <p>The Commission’s decision to propose a DFA was based on a digital fitness check undertaken in 2024, which highlighted addictive design as a major concern. In her <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683-f63ffb2cf648_en?filename=Political%20Guidelines%202024-2029_EN.pdf">political guidelines after reappointment for a second term in summer 2024</a>, Commission President Von der Leyen promised that her Commission team would “tackle unethical techniques used by online platforms by taking action on the addictive design of online services, such as infinite scroll, default auto play or constant push.” A few months later, Justice Commissioner McGrath’s mission letter tasked him with developing a Digital Fairness Act to tackle, among other things, “the addictive design of digital products”.&nbsp;</p> <blockquote><p>For the European Commission, "a real possibility [...] is to turn off such addictive design features"</p> </blockquote> <p>The Commission’s DG JUST department seems to be moving ahead with ambition. “What we will be examining are options precisely to give users more effective control. So, a real possibility, for example, is to turn off such addictive design features,” Maria-Myrto Kanellopoulou, head of the consumer law unit at the DG JUST, said at a conference in early 2025. Measures under consideration to address addictive design, at that stage, included broadening the definition of a “transactional decision” to give consumers, especially minors, more control over engagement features. This included <a href="https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2341772/eu-digital-fairness-act-lobbying-asks-questions-over-enforcement-of-current-rules">disabling such features by default and enabling users to opt out of algorithm-driven recommendations</a>. A ban on particularly harmful features targeting children was also under consideration. After several delays, the Commission’s proposal for a Digital Fairness Act is now expected in the fourth quarter of 2026.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Box 1: Excuses, excuses: Big Tech’s three key arguments why addictive design doesn’t need regulation</strong></p> <p lang="en-GB">1. Big Tech argues the EU should focus on enforcement of existing laws, such as the DSA;</p> <p lang="en-GB">2. Big Tech claims regulation is not needed and voluntary initiatives will solve any problems;</p> <p>3. Big Tech says new legislation is at odds with the Commission’s commitment to prioritising industrial competitiveness through ‘simplification’ of legislation.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-02/Profiting%20from%20Adiction_Bluesky%202A.png?itok=q9Ds18bk" width="800" height="450" alt="Infographic by Corporate Europe Observatory showing meetings between European Commission top officials and lobbyists on the Digital Fairness Act. A round meeting table is illustrated from above. Text shows 83.3% industry representatives (including Google, Snapchat, Spotify, and Apple), 13.6% NGOs, and 3.1% mixed entities and think tanks." class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2><strong>Big Tech’s lobbying against the DFA</strong></h2> <blockquote><p>In early 2025 several major Big Tech lobby groups spoke out even more strongly against the DFA, likely sensing favourable political opportunities</p> </blockquote> <p>Big Tech corporations and their lobby groups, as well as European tech companies, have wasted no time in attacking the proposed DFA. In autumn 2024 <a href="https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2134573/european-commission-points-to-digital-problems-in-eu-consumer-law">the European Tech Alliance (EUTA)</a> immediately criticised the Commission’s Digital Fairness Fitness Check, arguing it didn’t take into account the impact of the DSA, the Digital Markets Act, the AI Act, and the Data Act dealing with similar topics. EUTA represents European tech companies such as Spotify, Trivago, and Booking. In its <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/Flash%20Report%20DG%20JUST%20s%20meeting%20with%20EUTA%2007.02.pdf">meeting with DG JUST</a> on 7 February 2025 the EUTA “expressed skepticism about the need for a DFA” and raised concern about the impact “of an additional layer of rules on competitiveness”.<em> </em><a href="https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2336797/attachments/0">DigitalEurope</a> – whose members include Meta and TikTok – also weighed in, claiming that the challenges identified in the Commission’s analysis of existing law “stem not from gaps in the law, but from inconsistent and insufficient enforcement”.</p> <p>In early 2025 several major Big Tech lobby groups spoke out even more strongly against the DFA, likely sensing favourable political opportunities, given the Commission had by then clearly <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave">embarked on a deregulation </a>agenda, and President Trump had entered the White House with strong backing from US Big Tech companies. Both <a href="https://www.digitaleurope.org/resources/digital-fairness-act-do-we-need-new-laws-or-simply-better-enforcement/">DigitalEurope, in its May 2025 position paper</a>, and a June 2025 <a href="https://doteurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Joint-industry-statement-on-the-Digital-Fairness-Act.pdf">joint statement by 10 tech lobby groups</a>, (including Big Tech lobby groups DOT Europe, CCIA, and Allied for Startups) argued that existing legislation was sufficient and claimed that the plans for new legislation were at odds with the Commission’s stated priorities of ‘competitiveness’ and ‘simplification’.&nbsp;</p> <blockquote><p>Commission top officials have had at least 96 meetings with lobbyists on the DFA since December 2024</p> </blockquote> <p>It’s clear the lobbying battle gathered steam throughout 2025: according the EU Transparency Register, Commission top officials have had at least 96 meetings with lobbyists on the DFA since December 2024 (meetings with Digital Fairness Act mentioned as subject). A whopping 83 per cent of these meetings were with industry representatives (47 meetings were with companies, 28 with business lobby groups), whereas less than 14 per cent of the meetings were with NGOs (all of which were in favour of the DFA). Tech giants Apple, Google, Snap Inc, and Spotify topped the list with three or more lobby meetings with top Commission officials each. It is more than likely that the DFA was also discussed during many other lobby meetings with a different listed subject. On top of that, mid-level Commission officials also held lobby meetings on the DFA. Via a <a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/digital_fairness_act_lobby_meeti#incoming-59214">freedom of information request</a>, we received documents related to another 10 meetings of tech lobbyists with the specific unit inside DG JUST that is leading on preparing the legislative proposal (JUST.B.2), meetings that happened in the first half of 2025. Such lobby meetings with mid-level officials are not proactively disclosed on the Commission website. A follow-up request for access to documents related to <a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/digital_fairness_act_lobby_meeti_2#incoming-62873">more recent lobby meetings at DG JUST</a> is still pending, following our complaint about the lengthy delays (see also Box 4 on ‘Transparency setback’).</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="en-GB"><strong>Box 2: Big Tech’s ever increasing lobby spending&nbsp;</strong></p> <p>The tech industry has a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/big-tech-lobby-budgets-hit-record-levels">massive and growing lobbying presence in Brussels</a>, with nearly <strong>900 full-time digital sector lobbyists</strong>, and of these hundreds hold European Parliament access badges. Tech lobby spending in Brussels has hit a record <strong>€151 million annually</strong>, a 33.6 per cent increase since 2023; just ten companies such as Meta and Google are responsible for one third of that total lobby spend to influence EU policy.&nbsp;</p> <p>Of the corporations most actively lobbying against the DFA, <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/meta-platforms-ireland-limited-and-its-various-subsidiaries-f-k-a-facebook-ireland-limited?rid=28666427835-74">Meta is the biggest spender</a> with an EU lobbying budget of more than €10 million per year, with 30 lobbyists, 7 of which have a permanent access pass to the European Parliament. Notably, Meta’s lobbying offices are situated next to the US embassy in the Brussels EU quarter. <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/google?rid=03181945560-59">Google</a> reports spending almost €5 million per year on lobbying, employing 23 lobbyists, 7 of which have parliamentary accreditation, and had 51 meetings with Commission high-level officials in 2025 – on average one meeting a week. <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/tiktok-information-technologies-uk-limited?rid=165202837974-32">TikTok </a>spends up to €1.75 million euro per year on lobbying (11 lobbyists, 5 of which have parliament access passes). <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/snap-inc?rid=976985829492-08">Snap Inc</a>, without a Brussels office, spends €600-700,000 per year on EU lobbying and had a total of 16 meetings with Commission top officials in 2025.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-02/Profiting%20from%20Adiction_Bluesky%204.png?itok=Z6GompQi" width="800" height="450" alt="Big Tech's massive lobbying presence in Brussels" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The list of 96 lobby meetings shows that a wide range of companies and lobby groups are lobbying to influence the DFA, on a variety of different topics that might be covered in the new law. If we focus in on the lobbying around addictive design, it’s clear that the companies owning the most popular social media apps (Snap Inc, TikTok, Meta, and Google) have all been very actively pushing back against restrictions on their use of addictive methods.&nbsp;</p> <blockquote><p>Snap Inc, TikTok, Meta, and Google have all been very actively pushing back against restrictions on their use of addictive methods</p> </blockquote> <p>In a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/MeetingMinutes-61%20Google.pdf">June 2025 meeting with Commissioner McGrath</a> on the DFA, <strong>Google</strong> (owner of YouTube, a platform with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/27/social-media-trial-meta-tiktok-youtube">highly addictive features</a>) “provided information about the economic value of targeted advertising”, which the company fears may be further restricted. In its <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/Google%20DFA%20Feedback.pdf">response to the European Commission's public consultation</a> in October 2025, Google stated its concerns “about proposals to ban or restrict popular digital features”, arguing that such features (autoplay, notifications, infinite scroll) can be beneficial or safety-critical depending on the context. Google argues that “policymakers should consider existing industry-led best practices”.</p> <p><strong>Snap Inc</strong>, the owner of Snapchat, had three meetings on the DFA with the cabinets of Commissioners McGrath and Virkkunen. In the context of one of these meetings, Evan Spiegel, Chief Executive Officer of Snap Inc wrote to Commissioner McGrath wrongly claiming that the issues the DFA seeks to address, such as addictive design, “are already comprehensively regulated under the existing EU DSA” (<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/Thank%20you%20letter%20Commissioner%20McGrath%20Snap.pdf">letter of 27 May</a> 2025). Spiegel followed up a month later with a longer letter to McGrath claiming that “excessive regulatory burden” is one of the key root causes of the EU lagging behind in digital innovations (<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/Thank%20you%20letter%20Commissioner%20McGrath%20Snap.pdf">letter of 23 June</a> 2025). Spiegel calls for “new mechanisms to allow EU policymakers to fully assess the impact of new laws at the end of the legislative process”, after the trilogue phase. He mentioned the example of the DSA and its ban on targeted advertising to minors for online platforms, calling it “an extreme measure”. This ban was included in the DSA on the proposal of the European Parliament. Spiegel also insisted the Commission should be “avoiding overly prescriptive rules” and instead define “regulatory goals that allow flexibility in how companies meet them”. As examples of what should be avoided, Spiegel mentioned “blanket feature bans or horizontal ‘off-by-default’ rules, as discussed in the context of the upcoming DFA”.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>TikTok</strong> also had several meetings on the DFA with Commission top officials, including two meetings with DG JUST officials on May 6^th and <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/MeetingMinutes-114%20TikTok.pdf">May 30^th 2025</a>. In its official <a href="https://newsroom.tiktok.com/our-views-on-the-digital-fairness-act-public-consultation?lang=en-150">response to the European Commission's public consultation</a> in October 2025, TikTok argued that current regulations are sufficient. The company advocates for a "risk-based" approach to minors' safety and "persuasive design" (the euphemism it prefers over "addictive design"), rather than blanket bans on features. In a <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/MEETING%20REQUEST%20%5Bearly%202025%5D%20Letter%20to%20Commissioner%20McGrath%20from%20TikTok%20CEO-1.pdf">December 2024 letter to Commissioner McGrath</a>, TikTok’s Chief Executive Officer Shou Chew claimed that “TikTok is still a relatively young player in Europe, but we have always taken our responsibilities very seriously”. A remarkable statement, considering that TikTok is under investigation by the European Commission in two formal proceedings under the DSA. The first proceeding focuses on the protection of minors, advertising transparency, data access for researchers, as well as the risk management of addictive design and harmful content. The other was launched 10 days after the cancellation of Romania's presidential elections in November 2024, amid allegations of Russian interference, and focuses on TikTok's recommender systems and policies on disclosing political advertisements and paid-for political content.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-02/Screenshot%20of%20part%20of%20letter%20from%20TikTok_0.png?itok=POa-ZXDV" width="800" height="255" alt="Letter from TikTok" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-description field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Letter from TikTok's CEO to EU Commissioner McGrath - "we have always taken our responsibilities very serious".</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Meta</strong> (the owner of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/DFA%20Meeting%20Meta%2001%2004%202025.pdf">met with Commission officials in April 2025</a> to discuss the forthcoming DFA and seemed to use the meeting mainly to outline the company’s child protection measures. The Meta lobbyists claimed to have introduced numerous measures on their platforms “to ensure age-appropriate experiences” and recommended device-level age verification and parental consent at the app store level, thereby passing the responsibility on to app stores and parents. According to the notes of the meeting, Meta lobbyists told the Commission that “Meta implemented ‘Teen accounts’ in Instagram, with default protective settings applied for users aged 13 to 16, which require parental approval for deactivation”. However, an investigation by the Molly Rose Foundation and others <a href="https://mollyrosefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Teen-Accounts-Broken-Promises-How-Instagram-is-failing-to-protect-minors.pdf">published in September 2025</a>, showed that Meta’s claims are unreliable. The report 'Teen Accounts, Broken Promises', found that Instagram's 'Teen Accounts' and its algorithms systematically fail to protect children from harmful content, such as material promoting self-harm, suicide, and eating disorders. <a href="https://fairplayforkids.org/instagram-teen-accounts-fail-to-protect-children-safety-tools-testing-reveals/">A key finding</a> is that “two-thirds (64%) of the safety tools we tested were ineffective, with just 17% working as Meta described — leaving children at risk of harmful content and abuse”. The report concludes that Meta “appears to be fundamentally unwilling to tackle the child safety risks that blight its products”. Based on these findings, the Meta lobbyists appear to have misinformed the European Commission.</p> <blockquote><p>The report 'Teen Accounts, Broken Promises', found that Instagram's 'Teen Accounts' and its algorithms systematically fail to protect children from harmful content</p> </blockquote> <p>Meta’s PR claims suffered another blow in November 2025 when documents released in the context of US court proceedings showed that the company had quietly shut down an internal research initiative, <a href="https://journalrecord.com/2025/11/24/meta-internal-study-mental-health/">Project Mercury</a>, when early findings showed that quitting Facebook had reduced anxiety and depression among users. Even a one-week break resulted in noticeable improvements in mental wellbeing. Meta decided to end the project and bury the findings, which contradicted the company’s claims about the safety of its platforms. An unnamed Meta staff researcher compared Meta’s actions with the tobacco industry’s record, in previous decades, of suppressing research showing how harmful their products are. The documents surfaced in the context of a <a href="https://www.motleyrice.com/social-media-lawsuits/school-disctricts-lawsuit">lawsuit by US school districts against Meta and other social media platforms</a>.</p> <p>Moreover, <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.11507">a recent study</a> shows that half of all scientific studies on the impact of social media on society have ties to industry. According to the study, academic authors with ties to Meta were the most common at 14 per cent, followed by Google (8 per cent) and Microsoft (6 per cent). As the study acutely notes, industries producing harmful products have often successfully redirected scientific research to spread doubt.&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-02/Meta%20meeting%20DFA%20screenshot%20of%20part%20of%20notes_0.png?itok=YZaQoKIg" width="800" height="157" alt="Meta redacted letter" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-description field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>In a meeting with EU Commission officials about the DFA, Meta lobbyists promoted the company's Teen Accounts in Instagram as a safe space for teenagers.</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Meta appears to have only had one meeting with DG Just about the Digital Fairness Act during 2025 (but the DFA may have been discussed in the company’s other meetings on other subjects), and it looks like they did not submit feedback to the Commission’s public consultation. This seems surprising for the company that perhaps has most at stake, and also has <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/facebook-ireland-limited?rid=28666427835-74">the highest lobbying budget</a> of any individual company in Brussels. Meta might have chosen to keep a low profile in this stage of decision-making, ensuring its lobbying demands were promoted by others. Meta’s Transparency Register entry lists the company’s affiliations to no less than 70 organisations, ranging from the American Chamber of Commerce EU, Business Europe, DigitalEurope, IAB Europe, the Transatlantic Policy Network, over the Lisbon Council, Center for European Policy Studies (CEPS), to the Consumer Choice Center Europe (or CCC Europe).</p> <h2><strong>Big Tech funded ‘consumer’ lobbyists</strong></h2> <blockquote><p>Consumer Choice Center Europe is currently fully financed by Meta and Google, which means it should be seen as part of the lobbying by US Big Tech</p> </blockquote> <p>The role of CCC Europe is worth highlighting. In autumn 2025 Euronews’ TechNews section published several articles on EU digital policy issues “as part of an agreement with EU Tech Loop”, <a href="https://www.euronews.com/next/2025/10/19/public-consultation-for-digital-fairness-act-exposes-europes-survey-sore-spots">including two on the forthcoming Digital Fairness Act</a>. EU Tech Loop is run by the CCC Europe, a controversial organisation that claims to represent consumers but <a href="https://euobserver.com/81553/revealed-the-eu-lobbying-of-the-so-called-consumer-choice-center/#:~:text=Revealed:%20The%20EU%20lobbying%20of%20the%20so-called%20&amp;apos;Consumer%20Choice%20Center&amp;apos;&amp;text=The%20so-called%20Consumer%20Choice%20Center%2C%20a%20libertarian,petrol%20cars%20and%20green%20farming%20reforms%20d">lobbies against consumer protection</a>. CCC Europe is currently <a href="https://transparency-register.europa.eu/search-register-or-update/organisation-detail_en?id=634783053106-61">fully financed by Meta and Google</a>, which means it should be seen as part of the lobbying by US Big Tech against the EU’s digital rulebook, including the forthcoming Digital Fairness Act. CCC Europe has had seven meetings with centre-right MEPs on digital policy since December 2024 and lists the DFA as a policy focus in <a href="https://transparency-register.europa.eu/search-register-or-update/organisation-detail_en?id=634783053106-61">its entry in the EU lobby transparency register</a>. CCC Europe’s mother organisation (the Consumer Choice Center, with which it shares an address in the US) has <a href="https://www.tobaccotactics.org/article/consumer-choice-center">a long history of being funded by the tobacco industry</a> and lobbying for nicotine and tobacco products. We wrote to Euronews to ask for clarification, but haven’t received a response, despite several reminders. The EU Tech Loop content published on the Euronews website doesn’t mention that it’s funded by Big tech corporations. This means Euronews is allowing a Big Tech front group to covertly influence public opinion, without enabling readers to take into account the origins of the content.&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-02/Profiting%20from%20Adiction_Bluesky%203%281%29.png?itok=QQJxQ71_" width="800" height="450" alt="Infographic by Corporate Europe Observatory titled ‘Corporations most actively lobbying against the DFA.’ Speech-bubble graphics list Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snap Inc., with details on EU lobbying budgets, number of lobbyists, parliamentary access passes, and meetings with Commission officials. A cartoon lobbyist figure appears at a desk." class="image-style-image-l"> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p lang="en-GB"><strong>Box 3: Other key lobbying players</strong></p> <p lang="en-GB">Other players in the lobbying offensive against reining in addictive design of social media include:</p> <p>→ <strong>BusinessEurope</strong>, one of Europe’s most powerful corporate lobby groups, included the DFA in its December 2025 <a href="https://www.businesseurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-12-18-BusinessEurope_Mapping-of-regulatory-burden_December-2025.pdf">hitlist of 44 existing or forthcoming laws</a> that it considers to be an unacceptable ‘regulatory burden’. “We do not see the need for new rules to be adapted”, BusinessEurope states, without offering any substantive arguments.</p> <p>→ <strong>The Federation of European Data and Marketing (FEDMA),</strong> a coalition of postal and ad tech companies, in <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/Flash%20report%20meeting%20with%20FEDMA%2019%2002%202025.pdf">a 19 February</a> meeting told the Commission that “legislation is not needed but instead better enforcement” of existing legislation.</p> <p>→ <strong>The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB)</strong>, which lobbies for the online advertising industry and has representatives from Google and Microsoft on its board, opposes enabling consumers to opt out of personalised advertising. Such opt-outs are being considered to protect privacy and avoid manipulation of consumer behaviour. In an <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/Ares%202025%203527727%20email%20Redacted%20IAB%20Europe.pdf">email following a meeting with Commission McGrath</a>, the IAB told the Commission that competing “means being able to sell <em>personalised</em> ads” as advertisers are willing to pay more for this. In a <a href="https://iabeurope.eu/the-digital-fairness-act-and-the-eus-simplification-paradox/">November 2025 op-ed</a>, the IAB claims that the DFA will lead to “a de facto ban on personalised advertising” and insists that problems around influencer marketing should be left to “industry-led initiatives”. The IAB <a href="https://iabeurope.eu/the-digital-fairness-act-and-the-eus-simplification-paradox/">plays the deregulation card</a> and warns that “the future Digital Fairness Act risk departing from the simplification principle guiding the second von der Leyen Commission”. The DFA “will serve as an early indicator of whether the Commission’s commitment to regulatory self-constraint is genuine.<strong>“&nbsp;</strong></p> <p>→ <a href="https://www.epicenternetwork.eu/briefings/digital-fairness-without-red-tape-designing-smarter-eu-consumer-protection/"><strong>The Epicenter</strong></a>, a coalition of hardline neoliberal thinktanks linked to the <a href="https://multinationales.org/en/investigations/the-atlas-network-france-and-the-eu/">Atlas Network</a> (a global network with a long record of pro-corporate agenda, undermining climate science, and pushing neoliberal policies) warns that “the DFA risks undermining innovation, competitiveness and legal clarity”.</p> <p>→ <a href="https://progresschamber.org/insights/assessing-europes-digital-fairness-act/"><strong>The Chamber of Progress</strong></a>, a controversial Google-funded lobby group headquartered in the US but also actively lobbying Brussels, claims that the DFA is “seeking solutions for poorly-evidenced problems that existing regulations already address”.</p> <p>→ <strong>the army of lobby consultancy firms</strong> working for Big Tech, including <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/fti-consulting-belgium?rid=29896393398-67">FTI Consulting</a> (clients include Meta and Google), <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/apco-worldwide?rid=81995781088-41&amp;sid=222096">APCO</a> (clients include TikTok), <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/teneo-strategy?rid=705615811388-66">Teneo</a> (lobbies for Snap Inc), <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/fipra-international-srl?rid=58746194306-23">FIPRA</a>, and many more.</p> <p>→ <strong>law firms</strong> that provide lobbying services, such as <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/hogan-lovells-international-llp?rid=162092429393-66">Hogan Lovells</a> and <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/white--case-llp?rid=941612350168-88">White &amp; Case</a> (both of lobbied for Meta), <a href="https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/alber--geiger?rid=67820416722-09">Alber &amp; Geiger</a> and many others.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2><strong>Public consultation shows support for strong DFA</strong></h2> <p>The public consultation on the DFA in autumn 2025 attracted over 3300 responses, with a large majority favouring new binding rules to tackle addictive design. The <a href="https://cdn.table.media/assets/europe/public_consultation_on_the_digital_fairness_act_factual_summary_report.pdf">Commission summary report</a> ( December 2025) shows that a large share of respondents think that new binding rules are needed concerning addictive design features (70 per cent). Of those supporting new rules, 78 per cent think such features should be switched off by default for minors, and 58 per cent want these features to be switched off by default for everyone, allowing consumers to opt in if they wish. Interestingly, SMEs are far more supportive of such measures than large enterprises and business associations.&nbsp;</p> <p>After the public consultation ended in mid-October 2025, the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-groups/consult?lang=en&amp;do=groupDetail.groupDetail&amp;groupID=3750">Consumer Policy Advisory Group</a> (an advisory group consisting of consumer organisations and industry lobby groups) is now reviewing the findings to help shape the Commission’s proposal.&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Box 4: Transparency setback&nbsp;</strong></p> <p>Monitoring Big Tech lobbying around the DFA has been complicated by a recent setback to EU transparency. In December 2024 the Commission increased the number of officials whose meetings with lobbyists are published online to around 1,500, and announced that <a href="https://danielfreund.eu/success-for-lobby-transparency-1500-eu-officials-publish-lobby-meetings/?lang=en">the minutes of these meetings would also be made public</a>. However, what initially seemed like a significant advance in transparency has now been revealed to be of limited value, if not a step backwards. The notes from lobby meetings published on the Commission’s website are often extremely brief and lack meaningful substance (see for instance this <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/exportmeetings.do?doc=f9ff2cd4-f7dc-4b6d-be5f-dae468c29635&amp;host=no">meeting on the DFA</a>). Freedom of information (FOI) requests for minutes of meetings of top Commission officials did not deliver any more comprehensive notes. The European Ombudsman is<a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/ombudsman-probes-commission-industry-watchdog-agenda-ngo-lobbying/"> investigating the Commission’s new, less transparent approach</a>. Ironically, notes released for Big Tech lobby meetings with lower-level officials were far more detailed than those for high-level officials.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2><strong>Will the DFA survive the deregulation agenda?</strong></h2> <p>In addition to Big Tech’s lobbying power, the DFA is facing at least four other serious obstacles: the current obsession among European decision-makers with promoting ‘industry competitiveness’ via deregulation; the aggressive pressure from the US Government against any policies disliked by its Big Tech firms; the growing power of the MAGA-inspired far-right in EU politics; and the tendency to limit the debate about social media addiction to rules for minors only.</p> <p>Ursula Von Der Leyen has, in her second term <a href="https://www.corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave">embraced a radical deregulation agenda</a>, which has already resulted in <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/preparing-roll-back-digital-rights-commissions-secretive-meetings-industry">a proposed Digital Omnibus</a> that would reopen and weaken existing data privacy and Artificial Intelligence laws. As part of the deregulation agenda, the Commission is hosting a large number of events to gather stakeholder input on how to ‘simplify’ legislation, events where industry representati ves typically massively outnumber other interests. Some of the events on digital policy were less biased. McGrath told participants at ‘Implementation Dialogue on consumer law’ that DFA will include simplification, but only of “unjustified burdens”. “Simplification and burden reduction will be important elements”, a DG Just official told the Information Technology Council, a US based lobby group, during <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/Meeting%20minutes%20Nils%20Behrndt%20DDG%20JUST%20meeting%20with%20the%20Information%20Technology%20Council%20ITT%20on%20Digital%20Fairness%20Act%20on%2012%2003%202025.pdf">a meeting in March 2025</a>.&nbsp;</p> <blockquote><p>Ursula Von Der Leyen has, in her second term embraced a radical deregulation agenda</p> </blockquote> <p>As part of the deregulation agenda, the Commission has also introduced several new impact assessments for new draft laws. The draft legislative proposal for a DFA will need to go through a competitiveness check, a Single Market Check, and a SME Check, all of which could lead to weakening of the draft law. Also <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/news/european-commission-body-biased-ombudsman-and-eu-lawmakers-step-in/#:~:text=Pircher%20added%20that%20the%20main,even%20for%20MEPs%20or%20Council">the Regulatory Scrutiny Board</a> (RSB) will assess the proposal and – with new instructions from the second Von der Leyen Commission – the RSB is likely to be more radically ‘competitiveness’-focused than ever; a yellow or a red card is likely. This would require the Commission to revise its draft law. As mentioned earlier, industry lobby groups are heavily referring to the Commission’s ‘competitiveness’ and ‘simplification’ agenda in their lobbying against the DFA. They will undoubtedly seek to use the impact assessment phase later this year to weaken the draft law.</p> <blockquote><p>Industry lobby groups are heavily referring to the Commission’s ‘competitiveness’ and ‘simplification’ agenda in their lobbying against the DFA</p> </blockquote> <p>Ever since Trump retook the White House,<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/trumps-trade-war-against-protective-rules"> the US Government has launched unprecedented attacks </a>on EU digital regulations, describing the Digital Services Act and other tech laws as discriminatory "overseas extortion" and "regulatory suffocation", making repeated threats of punishing the EU with tariffs and fees. The US Government’s February 2025 aggressive ‘Overseas Extortion’ Memorandum claimed that EU fines and regulations are discriminating against US Big Tech corporations and “violate US sovereignty”. The <a href="https://ustr.gov/">US Trade Representative (USTR)</a> has warned that it would use "every tool at its disposal," if the EU goes ahead with enforcing digital legislation. In November 2025, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick demanded that the EU should weaken its digital regulations in order to get a deal to lower steel and aluminum tariffs. "We are talking to them about" rolling back EU tech rules, <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/international-trade/lutnick-says-eu-must-change-digital-rules-for-steel-tariff-deal">Lutnick said in an interview</a>.</p> <h2><strong>DFA and the European Parliament - more hurdles ahead?</strong></h2> <p>When the Commission’s legislative proposal is launched later this year, it will go to the European Parliament and member state governments. Already before the Parliament gets formally involved, MEPs have had at least 41 meetings with lobbyists on the subject of the Digital Fairness Act since October 2024, virtually all with tech lobbyists. This included MEP Aura Salla, a former Facebook lobbyist, who met Big Tech lobby group CCIA on the DFA in September 2025, and recently also met Snap, Digital Europe, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, France Digital, and numerous other tech lobbies in meetings on digital issues. Whereas the Parliament passed a strong resolution in 2023 calling for legislation to tackle addictive design, there are several reasons to be worried about whether this level of ambition is still there. The conservative EPP group of MEPs has a strong focus on minors – there is a risk that protections will only be introduced for children / youth, whereas there should be <a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2026/01/26/social-media-age-bans-toxic-business-model/">measures taken for everyone</a>.&nbsp;</p> <blockquote><p>Inspired by Trump’s MAGA movement, the European far right is intensifying its attacks on the Digital Services Act</p> </blockquote> <p>The far right political groups came out stronger from the June 2024 European Parliament elections and are increasingly hostile to strict regulation of social media, which could also become a hurdle for the forthcoming Digital Fairness Act. Inspired by Trump’s MAGA movement, the European far right is intensifying its attacks on the Digital Services Act (DSA) which obliges social media giants to identify and mitigate risks stemming from their algorithmic systems, such as the amplification of illegal content and manipulation of elections. The provisions regarding illegal content concern content that is <em>already illegal</em> under EU or national laws, such as child sexual abuse material, hate speech, or terrorist content. Despite this fact, groups like the Alliance for Defending Freedom (ADF) and the Orbán-linked MCC Brussels are making sweeping statements against the DSA. The ADF, actually a US organisation challenging abortion access, LGBTQ+ rights, and transgender rights, claims that the DSA’s mandated risk assessments of algorithms <a href="https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/118565/witnesses/HHRG-119-JU00-Wstate-PriceL-20250903-U5.pdf">could lead to censorship</a>. MCC Brussels launched its attack on the DSA <a href="https://brussels.mcc.hu/uploads/default/0001/02/119c80a7009b7426dc435b0869fb2604b7a3ebb8.pdf">in a report last autumn</a>, claiming the law results in ‘digital censorship’ and ‘stifles free speech’.&nbsp;</p> <p>At the end of November 2025 the European Parliament passed <a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-10-2025-0213_EN.pdf">a resolution on “Protection of minors online”</a>, calling for age restrictions on use of social media. The resolution suggests children should be 16 before accessing social media, with the option of parents allowing access from the age of 13. The resolution also calls for legislation to “ban the most harmful addictive practices and disable addictive design features by default for minors”. The resolution was approved with a large majority of 483 MEPs, with 92 opposing and 86 abstentions. Numerous <a href="https://howtheyvote.eu/votes/181520">far right MEPs from the ECR, PFE, and ESN groups</a> abstained or voted against the resolution, with an MEP from the Polish PiS claiming such decisions should be made by member state governments, not on the EU level.&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--box paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Box 5: Addictive design, extreme content, and the far right</strong></p> <p>The addictive and manipulative design of social media platforms is also a key factor in the drive for more extreme content. The effect is to push society towards more political extremes. That’s because, when platforms are designed to maximise engagement, their algorithms are more likely to favour and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/02/how-youtubes-algorithm-distorts-truth">push content</a> that triggers strong emotional responses such as fear, anger, hate, outrage, and titillation in order to keep our attention. As neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux notes, triggering these emotions has a similar effect on the brain's reward system as addictive substances. Thus there is a structural incentive for content to be more exaggerated, polarising, fearmongering, conspiracy-laden, hate-speech adjacent, or rage-bait. Misinformation proliferates in these environments. While algorithms are not solely responsible for these becoming more prevalent in society, the profit motives of Big Tech are surely not an insignificant factor. Algorithms often feed users extreme content and once they've clicked on this, they can feed them more and more of this type of content. This is often how people become both hooked and radicalised online.&nbsp;<br><br>Social media companies are often reluctant to reveal the inner workings of their algorithms. But they are designed by choice, and could be designed differently. For example, <a href="https://rightlivelihood.org/the-change-makers/find-a-laureate/audrey-tang/">Taiwan's former digital minister, Audrey Tang</a>, has developed and promoted algorithms that helped generate consensus and democratic discussion (referred to as 'bridging-based algorithms').</p> <p>MAGA (and many in far right European parties) oppose regulating the addictive nature of social media. Not coincidentally their allies’ social media investments are handing over vast political influence and control over our information environments. Elon Musk lost money but gained influence when he <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/04/elon-musk-x-trump-far-right">bought X</a>, and tech billionaire and MAGA-ally Larry Ellison’s recent deal with <a href="https://truthout.org/articles/new-us-tiktok-spinoff-will-be-controlled-by-trump-aligned-billionaires/">TikTok</a> includes control of its US algorithm. We shouldn’t underestimate how fundamentally threatening these moves are to democracy.&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2><strong>Big Tech versus civil society, youth, and parents</strong></h2> <p>There’s a massive and very unequal lobbying battle ahead, between the tech industry with its 900 Brussels-based lobbyists and €150 million-plus lobby spending versus civil society groups like <a href="https://edri.org/">EDRi </a>and <a href="https://www.beuc.eu/priorities/digital-rights">BEUC</a> with far, far less resources. But civil society has public opinion on its side and citizens, increasingly fed up with Big Tech and its outsized power, are getting organised.&nbsp;</p> <p>Last year, <a href="https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/07/03/europeans-want-tougher-eu-enforcement-of-big-tech-poll">a YouGov survey</a> showed that large majorities of French, Spanish, and German citizens want stricter EU enforcements of digital regulations and consider Big Tech to be too powerful. A recent poll in Denmark showed "42% of Danes want to try new alternatives to Big Tech and 68% would like to reduce their screen time”. Denmark is one of the countries that has seen new citizens’ groups emerge to take on the power of Big Tech. <a href="https://danmarkskifter.dk/">Danmark Skifter</a> (Denmark Shifts) is a national campaign “where thousands of Danes take back control of their digital lives – not alone, but together". Another sign of the growing demand for reining in Big Tech’s power abuse is the petition “Make TikTok safer for children and young people”, signed by over 170,000 people and delivered to TikTok’s European headquarters in Dublin in November 2025. It calls on TikTok to “address its toxic and addictive design”, which “risks sending them down rabbit holes of triggering depressive and self-harm-related content”.</p> <p>Another important development is the launch of <a href="https://ctrl-alt-reclaim.org/">ctrl+alt+reclaim</a>, Europe's first youth-led tech justice movement. The youth activists demand that their wellbeing “be prioritized over Big Tech's $11 billion in profits from minors alone”. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/dec/09/youth-movement-digital-justice-spreading-across-europe">The group’s demands</a> includes “a safer, healthier, more equitable social media environment” and “an end to the stranglehold a handful of US-based corporations have over social media and online spaces”. ctrl+alt+reclaim is also considering campaigning for “an EU-funded social media platform, an alternative to the big tech oligopoly, created by and for the public”. Other important civil society initiatives against Big Tech’s addiction machine bring together teachers, healthcare professionals, and parents with organizations such as <a href="https://www.smartphonefreechildhood.org/">Smartphone Free Childhood</a>, Parents for Safe Online Spaces (ParentsSOS), and <a href="https://www.klicksafe.eu/en">klicksafe</a> in Europe, and <a href="https://wearemama.org/">Mothers Against Media Addiction</a> (MAMA) in the US.</p> <p>The burning question for 2026 and the coming years is: will EU decision-makers stand up for the public interest and rein in the addictive design of social media, or will they back down due to Big Tech lobbying pressure? Will the Digital Fairness Act survive the current harsh political climate, with the top of the European Commission now prioritising corporate competitiveness via deregulation, and the Trump administration and the far right in Europe siding with Big Tech in opposing regulation? What’s at stake is nothing less than the future of democracy in Europe.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Take action! Sign to stop social media addiction: </strong>Avaaz has launched an online petition calling upon EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Commissioners McGrath and Virkkunen to prohibit the addictive techniques used by social media platforms. <em>Sign the initiative </em><a href="https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/eu_social_media_addiction_loc/">here</a><em>.</em></p> <p lang="en-GB">&nbsp;</p> <p><em><strong>Methodology</strong>: this report analysed the publicly-disclosed lobby meetings (as of 29 January 2026) of European Commissioners, high-level Commission officials and Members of the European Parliament. This included using the search and ranking functions of LobbyFacts.eu and IntegrityWatch.eu. The analysis also builds on more than 70 documents released by the European Commission following six different access to documents requests, focusing on top officials from DG JUST (</em><a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/tech_industry_lobby_meetings_wit#incoming-62221"><em>here</em></a><em>, </em><a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/lobby_meetings_on_digital_fairne"><em>here</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/documents_related_to_lobby_meeti#incoming-62634"><em>here</em></a><em>), DG JUST B.2 (</em><a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/digital_fairness_act_lobby_meeti#incoming-59214"><em>here</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/digital_fairness_act_lobby_meeti_2#incoming-62873"><em>here</em></a><em>) as well as DG Connect (</em><a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/meetings_with_stakeholders_on_th_9#incoming-61203"><em>here</em></a><em>).&nbsp;</em></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Thu, 05 Feb 2026 08:32:00 +0000 Olivier Hoedeman 2304 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/addicted-algorithm <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> New research exposes how Big Tech lobbies to keep us hooked on social media </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">05.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/digital" hreflang="en">Tech</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Brussels, 5 February 2026</strong> – As the European Commission prepares a new Digital Fairness Act (DFA) to tackle addictive design of social media and other harmful digital practices, new research by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) reveals intense lobbying by Big Tech and industry groups to block or water down meaningful&nbsp;measures against social media addiction.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The Commission’s Justice Department (DG JUST) is considering ambitious measures to curb addictive design features and harmful algorithmic practices. However, these efforts are facing fierce opposition from major Big Tech companies, including Meta, Google, TikTok and Snap, as well as an extensive network of industry lobby groups and think tanks.</p> <p>‘<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/addicted-algorithm-how-big-tech-lobbies-keep-us-hooked-social-media">Addicted to the algorithm: how Big Tech lobbies to keep us hooked on social media</a>’ reveals that tech giants and their lobbying organisations have enjoyed privileged access to Commission decision-makers, while promoting dubious arguments, ranging from calls for self-regulation to claims that new rules would undermine the EU's competitiveness.</p> <p>Key findings include:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Commission officials met lobbyists&nbsp; more than 100 times</strong> on the Digital Fairness Act since December 2024. 83% of the lobby meetings that Commission top officials had on the DFA were with industry representatives, including 47 meetings with individual companies and 28 with business lobby groups. By contrast, less than 14% of these meetings were held with NGOs and trade unions.</li> <li><strong>Meta lobbyists presented misleading claims</strong> to the European Commission about the safety of Instagram for young women. These claims are contradicted by several recent independent studies as well as analyses of Meta’s own internal documents that have entered the public domain via whistleblowers and US court cases.</li> <li>The <strong>Consumer Choice Center</strong> – a lobby group funded by <strong>Google and Meta</strong> – has launched a project called ‘EU Tech Loop’, which publishes articles on EU digital policies on the Euronews website. The content closely echoes Big Tech talking points, which raises questions about untransparent influencing via EU media spaces.</li> <li>Beyond&nbsp;Big Tech’s lobbying firepower, the DFA is facing <strong>at least four other obstacles</strong>: the current obsession among EU decision-makers with industry competitiveness via deregulation, pressure from the Trump administration, the growing power of the far right in EU politics, and the tendency to limit debate on social media addiction to rules for minors.</li> </ul> <p>The investigation was further hindered by the recent rollback of transparency rules by the European Commission, meaning that detailed minutes of meetings between top officials and lobbyists are no longer systematically made available to the public, making it more difficult to scrutinise Big Tech influence.</p> <p><strong>Olivier Hoedeman, Corporate Europe Observatory research and campaign coordinator</strong>, says: <em>“The addictive design of social media has become a major societal problem with serious impacts on public health and endangering the future of democracy. Any&nbsp;weakening of the needed regulation, in the name of 'simplification' or ‘competitiveness’, would only benefit the already excessively powerful US-based tech giants.&nbsp;</em></p> <p><em>EU decision-makers should stand up against Big Tech lobbying, protect the public interest and rein in the addictive design of social media.”</em></p> <p>Opinion polls show that EU citizens want stricter regulation of Big Tech, while a growing number of grassroots citizens groups across Europe are campaigning against addictive design, harmful algorithms and other abusive digital practices. Whether the Digital Fairness Act lives up to these expectations will depend on whether EU institutions prioritise public health and democratic accountability over corporate lobbying pressure.</p> <p>ENDS</p> <p><strong>For press inquiries, please contact</strong></p> <p>Olivier Hoedeman, Corporate Europe Observatory campaign and research coordinator</p> <p><a href="#" data-mail-to="byvivre/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +32 4 74486545</p> <p>Marcella Via, Corporate Europe Observatory press officer</p> <p><a href="#" data-mail-to="zrqvn/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +32 489 622233</p> <p><strong>Notes to editor</strong></p> <ul> <li>You can read the full report&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/addicted-algorithm-how-big-tech-lobbies-keep-us-hooked-social-media">here</a></li> <li><strong>Methodology</strong>: this article analysed the publicly-disclosed lobby meetings (as of 29 January 2026) of European Commissioners, high-level Commission officials and Members of the European Parliament. The analysis also builds on more than 70 documents released by the European Commission following six different access to documents requests, focusing on top officials from DG JUST (<a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/tech_industry_lobby_meetings_wit#incoming-62221">here</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/lobby_meetings_on_digital_fairne">here</a> and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/documents_related_to_lobby_meeti#incoming-62634">here</a>), DG JUST B.2 (<a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/digital_fairness_act_lobby_meeti#incoming-59214">here</a> and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/digital_fairness_act_lobby_meeti_2#incoming-62873">here</a>) as well as DG Connect (<a href="https://www.asktheeu.org/request/meetings_with_stakeholders_on_th_9#incoming-61203">here</a>).&nbsp;</li> <li>The Digital Fairness Act legislative proposal is expected in the last quarter of 2026.</li> <li>In October 2025, CEO&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/new-analysis-exposes-deep-influence-big-tech-eu-commissions-roll-back-digital-rights">published a report</a> on the tech industry’s lobbying firepower.&nbsp;</li> <li><strong>Sign to stop social media addiction:&nbsp;</strong>Avaaz has launched an online petition calling upon EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Commissioners McGrath and Virkkunen to prohibit the addictive techniques used by social media platforms. <em>Sign the initiative&nbsp;</em><a href="https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/eu_social_media_addiction_loc/">here</a><em>.</em></li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">05.02.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/addicted-algorithm-0" hreflang="en">Addicted to the algorithm</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Thu, 05 Feb 2026 06:00:00 +0000 Marcella Via 2305 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/new-briefing-calls-out-scientific-deception-chemicals-industry <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">02.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/pesticides-gmos" hreflang="en">Pesticides &amp; GMOs</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Despite the need for urgency to tackle the <a href="https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html">toxic chemical pollution crisis</a>, regulation is not protecting people’s health and the planet, with a major contributor being the deceptive tactics that chemical companies and their allies deploy around science in order to keep producing and selling their toxic products.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>This is the conclusion of a new <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/pollution-playbook">briefing</a> ‘The Pollution Playbook: how industry blocks regulation of toxic chemicals’ published by the <a href="https://www.ciel.org/">Center for International Environmental Law</a> (CIEL) and Corporate Europe Observatory, which is being launched at the start of the inaugural panel of the UN Environment Programme’s Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution (<a href="https://www.unep.org/isp-cwp/plenary">ISP-CWP</a>) on 2-6 February in Geneva. This panel will provide scientific assessments on chemicals, waste, and pollution to inform policymaking at the national, regional, and global levels, and thus must be led by independent science.&nbsp;</p> <p>Through four case studies (PFAS / forever chemicals, bisphenol A, benzene, and pesticides), the briefing explores corporate scientific disinformation tactics from withholding scientific knowledge of a substance’s harm and undermining independent science to establishing front groups and ghostwriting scientific studies.</p> <p>Independent, accurate science is essential for assessing and regulating hazardous substances to prevent harm to human health and the environment. The cases featured here, together with decades of other real-life examples, have illustrated that the companies that manufacture harmful chemicals frequently downplay, misrepresent, or manipulate scientific information about their products to resist or delay regulation.</p> <p>Today, CIEL and Corporate Europe Observatory insist that companies that produce harmful chemicals (and their lobby allies) should be banned from participating in regulatory processes for the hazardous substances they manufacture and the wider chemicals policy landscape. This would mirror the <a href="https://fctc.who.int/resources/publications/m/item/guidelines-for-implementation-of-article-5.3">approach</a> taken by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which requires that the tobacco industry is not involved in public health policy. To enforce this approach in the chemicals sphere, there should be clear conflict-of-interest rules and procedures for policymaking and scientific spaces, such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution. Crucially, officials must urgently establish strong, well-funded, properly independent scientific channels that can serve as the basis for decision-making on chemical regulation, thereby avoiding reliance on industry-provided data.</p> <p><strong>Rachel Radvany from CIEL said:</strong></p> <p><em>“Policies should protect human health and the environment, not corporate profits. Time and time again, companies that profit from products that harm our health try to block regulations that would limit those profits. We must act to protect policymaking spaces from vested interests so that they can serve the people, not companies.”&nbsp;</em></p> <p><strong>Vicky Cann from Corporate Europe Observatory said:</strong></p> <p><em>“It is an absolute scandal that chemical companies have used scientific deception to prevent tougher regulations on forever chemicals, pesticides, and many other substances which impact our health. Decision-makers around the world must stand up to toxics producers, recognise their commercial interests, and instead base regulation on truly independent science.”</em></p> <p><em>ENDS</em></p> <p><strong>For media inquiries, please contact</strong></p> <p>Vicky Cann, <a href="#" data-mail-to="ivpxl/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>, +44 7960 988096</p> <p>Nina Holland, <a href="#" data-mail-to="avan/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>, +32 466 294420</p> <p>Cate Bonacini, <a href="#" data-mail-to="cerff/ng/pvry/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>, +1-510-520-9109</p> <p><strong>Notes to editor</strong></p> <ul> <li>The new briefing ‘The Pollution Playbook: how industry blocks regulation of toxic chemicals’ is available <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/pollution-playbook">here</a>.</li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="The Pollution Playbook- How Industry Blocks Regulation of Toxic Chemicals.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/The%20Pollution%20Playbook-%20How%20Industry%20Blocks%20Regulation%20of%20Toxic%20Chemicals.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Pollution Playbook- How Industry Blocks Regulation of Toxic Chemicals.pdf</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Mon, 02 Feb 2026 08:00:00 +0000 Anonymous 2303 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/02/pollution-playbook <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> How industry blocks regulation of toxic chemicals </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">02.02.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/pesticides-gmos" hreflang="en">Pesticides &amp; GMOs</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/851" hreflang="en">Plastics</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Toxic chemical pollution is a global crisis. More than 350,000 chemicals and mixtures have been identified in inventories across countries and regions, and evidence shows that many industrial chemicals are harmful to human health. Despite increasing evidence of hazardous chemicals in the environment and in human bodies, there are many regulatory gaps. As this new <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/The%20Pollution%20Playbook-%20How%20Industry%20Blocks%20Regulation%20of%20Toxic%20Chemicals.pdf">briefing</a> published by the <a href="https://www.ciel.org/">Center for International Environmental Law</a> (CIEL) and Corporate Europe Observatory shows, while there are many reasons for this, a major contributor to this regulatory gap is the deceptive tactics that manufacturers use to keep producing and selling their toxic products.</p> <p>The briefing is also available in <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/Le%20guide%20de%20la%20pollution.pdf">French</a> and <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/Compendio%20de%20estrategias%20frente%20a%20la%20contaminaci%C3%B3n.pdf">Spanish</a>, while there is also a shorter summary briefing in English <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/CIEL_Pollution_Playbook_factsheet_4.14.26_QR.pdf">here</a>. You can also listen to our <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/03/pollution-playbook-how-industry-blocks-regulation-toxic-chemicals">podcast</a> with Nina Holland, Rachel Radvany and Olivier de Schutter.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>From tobacco to fossil fuels, from plastics to chemicals, there is a long history of corporate interests and their allies using deceptive tactics to avoid regulation of harmful products.</p> <p>When industry manufactures doubt, lobbies regulators and politicians, and wrongly presents its products as ‘safe’ to delay, limit, or impede regulations at the national, regional, or global level, it does so at the expense of human health and the environment.</p> <p>Companies often present themselves as essential partners in policymaking because they have unique access to the data on their chemicals and often claim ‘confidentiality. However, the historical record indicates a pattern of dishonest engagement in policy and regulatory processes through hidden data and manipulation or through attempts to discredit independent science that shows the harms of their products. Trade secrets and confidentiality must not be used as excuses to embed manufacturers and lobbyists in policymaking processes and decision-making bodies.</p> <p>Companies and their trade associations should not be able to influence policymaking for hazardous substances they manufacture or the wider chemicals policy landscape. Institutions need to develop strong conflict-of-interest policies to safeguard policymaking from vested interests.</p> <p>Read our <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/The%20Pollution%20Playbook-%20How%20Industry%20Blocks%20Regulation%20of%20Toxic%20Chemicals.pdf">briefing</a> and check out the four case studies:</p> <ul> <li> <p dir="ltr">Industry withholding knowledge - PFAS / forever chemicals</p> </li> <li> <p dir="ltr">Industry undermining independent science - Bisphenol A</p> </li> <li> <p dir="ltr">Industry establishing front groups - Benzene</p> </li> <li> <p dir="ltr">Industry combining disinformation strategies - Pesticides</p> </li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.01.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/chemical-reaction" hreflang="en">Chemical reaction</a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-downloads field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Downloads</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="The Pollution Playbook- How Industry Blocks Regulation of Toxic Chemicals.pdf" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/The%20Pollution%20Playbook-%20How%20Industry%20Blocks%20Regulation%20of%20Toxic%20Chemicals.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Pollution Playbook- How Industry Blocks Regulation of Toxic Chemicals.pdf</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Compendio de estrategias frente a la contaminación" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/Compendio%20de%20estrategias%20frente%20a%20la%20contaminaci%C3%B3n.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Compendio de estrategias frente a la contaminación</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Le guide de la pollution" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/Le%20guide%20de%20la%20pollution.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Le guide de la pollution</a> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="media media--type-file media--view-mode-default"> <a class="document-link" title="Pollution Playbook factsheet" href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/CIEL_Pollution_Playbook_factsheet_4.14.26_QR.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pollution Playbook factsheet</a> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Mon, 02 Feb 2026 07:00:00 +0000 Anonymous 2302 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/dissecting-deregulation <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> A series of cartoons </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">22.01.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/digital" hreflang="en">Tech</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The EU Commission is taking a political chainsaw to hard won social, environmental, and digital protections. Find out more at <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch">Deregulation Watch</a> and our <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/RjrwKPiTmmZM5BG?dir=/&amp;editing=false&amp;openfile=true">Omnibus tracker</a>. And check out these new cartoons below by @cartoonRalph.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The EU Commission and industry both like to talk about “simplification” of EU laws, which makes it sounds like a mild and gentle process. Other favourite phrases include “streamlining” or “cutting red tape”. But let’s be clear: the EU's simplification agenda is about cutting social, green, &amp; digital protections.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-01/commission%20guide%20HZ.png?itok=HmPpvqIj" width="800" height="600" alt="Deregulation guide" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Cartoon by @cartoonRalph</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The EU's deregulation chainsaw is being wielded in several ways. Ten omnibuses (so far) have been announced by the Commission including on sustainability, chemicals, pesticides, digital, agriculture, defence, pollution. These rules are under attack. See our <a href="https://cloud.corporateeurope.org/s/RjrwKPiTmmZM5BG?dir=/&amp;editing=false&amp;openfile=true">Omnibus tracker</a> for more detail.</p> <p><br><br>&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-01/omnibus%20HZ.png?itok=2rVmZgbl" width="800" height="600" alt="Deregulation omnibus" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Cartoon by @cartoonRalph</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>There have also been numerous so-called “reality checks” which feed into the deregulatory Omnibus process. But these Commission “reality checks” are <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave">pseudo consultations</a>, dominated by industry, and operating on ridiculously short timelines.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-01/realitycheck%20HZ.png?itok=6DcZQ5BU" width="800" height="600" alt="Deregulation reality checks" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Cartoon by @cartoonRalph</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>And the Commission looks set to continue its turbo-charged deregulation agenda. There are rumours of more omnibuses, while other much-needed rules in the pipeline now look as if they will be substantially weakened, for example on <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/forever-chemical-firms-continue-forever-eu-lobbying">PFAS / forever chemicals</a> or wider chemicals reforms.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-01/machine%20HZ.png?itok=JqzyqhhV" width="800" height="600" alt="Deregulation turbo machine" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Cartoon by @cartoonRalph</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>We need Rules to Protect citizens and the planet, not deregulation. As 470 groups have <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/09/our-protection-must-not-be-sold-profit">demanded</a>, the Commission needs to stop doing bidding of big business and get back to regulating in public interest. Check out <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch">Deregulation Watch</a>.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-01/redtape%20HZ.png?itok=PN50Q55o" width="800" height="600" alt="Deregulation cutting red tape" class="image-style-image-l"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Cartoon by @cartoonRalph</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--promotional-banner paragraph--view-mode--default"> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">08.06.2026</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch" hreflang="en">Deregulation Watch</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">01.07.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave" hreflang="en">A crash course on the EU’s deregulation wave</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Thu, 22 Jan 2026 08:48:00 +0000 Vicky Cann 2301 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/forever-chemical-firms-continue-forever-eu-lobbying <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <h2 class="centertext article_subtitle"> Op ed in EU Observer </h2> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.01.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/environment" hreflang="en">Environment</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/taxonomy/term/850" hreflang="en">Chemicals</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p dir="ltr">It's been exactly a year since the revelations of the <a href="https://foreverpollution.eu/lobbying/">Forever Lobbying Project</a> about both the devastating impacts of forever chemicals (or PFAS), and the corporate influence campaign that has kept these harmful substances in our food, water, soil, and bodies.&nbsp;</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p dir="ltr">The compelling nature of the Project’s <a href="https://euobserver.com/green-economy/ar5e55ebc1">evidence</a> should have led EU officials working on the proposed ban on PFAS ‒ persistent chemicals found in products from frying pans to air conditioning units ‒ to re-consider their contacts with the industry lobby, and to ensure that the promised ban is as wide and comprehensive as possible.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">But 12 months later the EU has, if anything, weakened its approach to regulate these uniquely harmful products. Chemicals lobbyists appear to be winning the battle.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <h3>Forever chemicals do not go away</h3> <p dir="ltr">The evidence is mounting about the problems caused by PFAS pollution, which is <a href="https://www.env-health.org/BanPFAS/#1679324305088-3249b7f2-079e">linked</a> to kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disease, liver damage, and hormone disruption. Young children, people who are pregnant, and older people are especially at risk.</p> <p dir="ltr">Recent stories have revealed PFAS contamination of our morning <a href="https://www.pan-europe.info/press-releases/2025/12/high-levels-forever-chemical-tfa-everyday-cereal-products-all-across-europe">breakfast cereal</a>, our lunchtime piece of <a href="https://www.pan-europe.info/resources/reports/2024/02/toxic-harvest-rise-forever-pfas-pesticides-fruit-and-vegetables-europe">fruit</a>, and even our evening <a href="https://www.pan-europe.info/press-releases/2025/04/study-reveals-alarming-surge-forever-chemical-tfa-european-wine">glass of wine</a>.</p> <p dir="ltr">High-level politicians are not exempt personally from PFAS contamination either. EU environment commissioner Jessika Roswall was among 24 European politicians who have <a href="https://chemsec.org/eu-leaders-contaminated-with-pfas-forever-chemicals/">tested positive</a> for PFAS in their bloodstream.</p> <p dir="ltr">The results of some individual studies, for instance on<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/13/microplastics-human-body-doubt"> plastics in human brains</a>, have been questioned by scientific peer reviews, but the broader findings remain unchallenged. &nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">It is clear that it is much safer to ban PFAS production and use, rather than let these forever chemicals loose in our bodies and the environment and to then try to deal with the consequences later. It is also much cheaper. The <a href="https://foreverpollution.eu/lobbying/">Forever Lobbying Project</a> revealed the €2 trillion costs of cleaning-up PFAS in the European environment over 20 years.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">Meanwhile, major investors <a href="https://chemsec.org/press-release-hazardous-chemicals-are-toxic-to-profits-investors-warn/">warn</a> that there is a dwindling economic logic in producing hazardous substances, rather than innovative, safer alternatives.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">But the EU’s PFAS ban remains a far-off hope and there are worrying indications that the regulators are looking to let the forever pollution industry off the hook.</p> <h3>Deregulation sweeping away PFAS ban?</h3> <p dir="ltr">A wave of <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch">deregulation</a> is sweeping through the EU capital. A political chainsaw is cutting down existing laws to protect health, the environment, and workers’ rights, while industry lobbies are receiving a warm welcome from decision-makers as they send in their <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/07/crash-course-eus-deregulation-wave">wish-lists</a> of rules which they would like to see dismantled.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">Also at risk are those rules which are still in the pipeline ‒ such as the proposed PFAS ban.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">There is now a serious risk that the PFAS ban will be substantially cut-back by the deregulation chainsaw. While the European Commission continues to <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1755">emphasise</a> its commitment to tackling PFAS, its language around the scope of the proposed ban often emphasises ‘consumer uses’ such as cosmetics and waterproof clothing. A focus on consumer PFAS sounds like a good step, but could allow countless other, industrial sources of PFAS contamination to continue.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), in preparing a vital opinion on the proposed PFAS ban, also seems to be weakening its scope: last year it <a href="https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/111425157/echa_update_pfas_en.pdf/6775e241-204e-af0a-a2d0-4c16ba2c138d#msdynmkt_trackingcontext=45f45125-14dc-453d-a6f1-ca4344910000">announced</a> it would exclude eight sectors of PFAS uses from its evaluation. This <a href="https://chemsec.org/echa-just-split-the-pfas-restriction-heres-why-its-a-disaster/">"disastrous"</a> decision must be seen in the context of intense <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/chemical-reaction">corporate lobby</a> demands for exemptions from a ban.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">Disappointingly, the five countries initiating the PFAS ban proposal are also <a href="https://echa.europa.eu/-/echa-publishes-updated-pfas-restriction-proposal">diluting</a> their original proposal. It looks as if they may <a href="https://chemsec.org/pfas-restriction-proposal-5-red-flags-from-the-recent-update/">recommend</a> that production of PFAS can go ahead if emission control measures are in place. They have also clarified that European PFAS production for export should continue.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">All of these developments threaten to carve serious inroads into the PFAS ban as it was originally proposed.</p> <p dir="ltr">The PFAS corporate lobby should have been chastened by the revelations of the Forever Lobbying Project, especially its <a href="https://foreverpollution.eu/lobbying/the-disinformation-campaign/">findings</a> about how some in the industry have relied upon a cynical “disinformation campaign”.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">And decision-makers should have wised-up to the <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/chemical-reaction">tactics</a> of the PFAS lobby and protected themselves from the corporate interests so determined to undermine public-interest law-making. But this has not happened.</p> <p dir="ltr">It is imperative that European politicians listen to the health, environmental, and economic arguments against PFAS and bring forward a comprehensive ban on forever chemicals as urgently as possible.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr"><em>This op ed was </em><a href="https://euobserver.com/health-and-society/ar4545905d"><em>published</em></a><em> by EU Observer. Recent op eds in other languages on this topic include:</em></p> <p><em>🇫🇷 </em><a href="https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2025/10/31/pfas-l-interdiction-des-polluants-eternels-en-europe-reste-un-espoir-lointain_6650348_3232.html"><em>Le Monde</em></a><em>&nbsp;</em></p> <p><em>🇨🇿 </em><a href="https://denikreferendum.cz/clanek/238163-vecne-chemikalie-kdyz-lobbing-vitezi-nad-zdravim" id="homeLink"><em>Deník Referendum</em></a></p> <p><em>🇵🇹 </em><a href="https://www.publico.pt/2026/01/12/azul/opiniao/lobbying-eterno-industria-substancias-quimicas-eternas-2160484#"><em>PÚBLICO</em></a><em>&nbsp;</em></p> <p><em>🇫🇷 </em><a href="https://www.lesoir.be/729392/article/2026-02-17/les-entreprises-des-produits-chimiques-eternels-poursuivent-leur-lobbying"><em>Le Soir</em></a></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.01.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/chemical-reaction" hreflang="en">Chemical reaction</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">13.05.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/05/consumer-pfas-vs-universal-ban" hreflang="en">Persistent pollution</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Wed, 14 Jan 2026 16:56:00 +0000 Vicky Cann 2299 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/article-article-how-big-tech-shaped-eus-roll-back-digital-rights <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">14.01.2026</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-topics field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/topics/digital" hreflang="en">Tech</a></div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p id="docs-internal-guid-8d970413-7fff-a660-cab2-d5a54af12fbd" dir="ltr">In a new analysis by Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl, we trace Big Tech's fingerprints on the Digital Omnibus proposals - a major deregulation of EU digital laws including the GDPR and the AI Act. They are helped in this attempt by the Trump administration and the European far right.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p id="docs-internal-guid-baf45d50-7fff-fae2-9151-ff9c7515bb69" dir="ltr">At the end of November 2025, Ursula von der Leyen gave Trump and his tech oligarchs an early Christmas present: an unprecedented attack on digital rights. In its so-called Digital Omnibus, the European Commission proposed weakening important rules designed to protect us from Big Tech’s abuses of power.</p> <p dir="ltr">These are the protections that keep everyone's data safe, governments and companies accountable, protect people from having artificial intelligence (AI) systems decide their life opportunities, and ultimately keep our societies free from unchecked surveillance.</p> <p dir="ltr">At the same time, the Digital Omnibus is part of the European Commission's&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/deregulation-watch">deregulation agenda</a>, which threatens key social and environmental standards in Europe. Ironically this deregulation agenda is being promoted by the Commission as a way to make the EU 'competitive' – despite in reality actively empowering US Big Tech companies that dominate the field.</p> <p dir="ltr">The Digital Omnibus was immediately&nbsp;<a href="https://noyb.eu/en/digital-omnibus-eu-commission-wants-wreck-core-gdpr-principles">heavily</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://edri.org/our-work/europe-is-dismantling-its-digital-rights-from-within/">criticised</a> by&nbsp;<a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/11/eu-digital-omnibus-proposals-will-tear-apart-accountability-on-digital-rights/">numerous</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.beuc.eu/press-release/eus-plan-simplify-digital-laws-benefit-mainly-large-companies-expense-consumers">civil</a> society organisations.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-police-world-digital-tech-us-china-regulations/">Politico</a> even called it the end of the ‘Brussels effect’ – that is, that European tech regulations are adopted in other countries – and wrote that “Washington is [now] setting the pace on deregulation in Europe.”</p> <p dir="ltr">To show the extent of Big Tech’s influence on the Digital Omnibus, we compared the Commission’s proposals with the lobbying positions from Big Tech and its associations.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">The proposals in the Digital Omnibus concern both data protection and rules for AI. While the EU mistakenly speaks of benefits for European corporations, it is clear that weak digital rules strengthen the power of Google, Microsoft, Meta etc, thereby jeopardising the goal of becoming more independent from Big Tech and the US.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">In the past, Big Tech has repeatedly spread the one-sided lobbying message that data protection hinders economic growth and innovation,&nbsp;<a href="https://euneedsai.com/">especially</a> with regard to AI. This includes exceptions for SMEs and a fundamental focus on making&nbsp;<a href="https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/2f/ca/502331/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2503310295.pdf">more use of data</a> instead of protecting it.</p> <p dir="ltr">Tech companies are spreading these messages with a record-breaking lobbying budget, a huge lobbying network, and support from the Trump administration. The digital industry’s annual lobby spending has grown from&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/big-tech-lobby-budgets-hit-record-levels">€113 million in 2023 to €151 million today</a> – an increase of 33.6 percent in just two years.</p> <p dir="ltr">Now, the European Commission appears to be bowing to this lobbying pressure and adopting key lobbying messages from Google, Microsoft, Meta and their many lobby organisations in its Digital Omnibus.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">Here we break down these industry lobbying messages, how they have been adopted by the Commission as proposed text changes, and what the real world impacts could be.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2 id="docs-internal-guid-8c742d9c-7fff-2d73-6bd2-abdc2b2f3b0b">How the Commission aims to weaken the GDPR and ePrivacy</h2> <p>The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the backbone of the EU’s digital rulebook. While the Commission&nbsp;<a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/fr/speech_25_2732">claims</a> it is only giving the GDPR a “face-lift”, its proposed changes -&nbsp; from the definition of personal data to the use of data for training AI - will have far-reaching consequences to people’s rights, and will benefit Big Tech’s problematic business model based on massive data extraction.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3 id="docs-internal-guid-9e92ada9-7fff-22f1-9b6c-122a6665ff03">Limiting the definition of personal data&nbsp;</h3> <p dir="ltr">The Commission intends to stop classifying pseudonymised data (ie swapping out a user's identifiable name for a code or number) as personal data if a company claims it cannot identify a person, thereby exempting it from GDPR protection. This rule would also apply even when other actors ( for instance data brokers) can still identify individuals based on the pseudonymised data.</p> <p dir="ltr">As the digital rights organisations&nbsp;<a href="https://noyb.eu/en/digital-omnibus-eu-commission-wants-wreck-core-gdpr-principles">Noyb</a> and&nbsp;<a href="https://edri.org/our-work/commissions-digital-omnibus-is-a-major-rollback-of-eu-digital-protections/">EDRi</a> have pointed out, this change turns a universal rule into a subjective one. GDPR protections will only apply when a company has the means to identify a person based on the data it holds. This gives huge leeway to companies to decide not to apply the GDPR arguing that they can’t identify a person. Worse, data can be sold to other companies or data brokers that do have the means to re-identify individuals.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">But even if data is never sold or passed on to third parties, the proposed subjective approach would still severely narrow the scope of the GDPR. Big Tech companies such as Meta and Google for instance could use personal data for online tracking by claiming that the data cannot be traced back to a natural person and is therefore not covered by the GDPR.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p dir="ltr">&nbsp;</p> <dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt><strong>Digital Omnibus</strong></dt> <dd> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Proposed changed text to article 4(1) of the GDPR in the digital omnibus in italics:</strong> “Information relating to a natural person is not necessarily personal data for every other person or entity, merely because another entity can identify that natural person.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Information shall not be personal for a given entity where that entity cannot identify the natural person to whom the information relates, taking into account the means reasonably likely to be used by that entity. Such information does not become personal for that entity merely because a potential subsequent recipient has means reasonably likely to be used to identify the natural person to whom the information relates.</em></p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Big Tech’s lobby position&nbsp;&nbsp;</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-faedc10c-7fff-a82e-6b7c-f7f0c86a1bc4" dir="ltr">This move closely reflects Big Tech's lobby position. The industry&nbsp; has long been calling for greater commercial use of personal data. The use of anonymous and pseudonymous data in particular would contribute to this.</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>DigitalEurope</strong>, (which counts all Big Tech companies among its members),&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/DigitalEurope%20lobby%20paper.pdf">wrote</a>: “Clarify that pseudonymised data is not personal data when recipients cannot reasonably re-identify individuals.”</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Microsoft Germany</strong> also&nbsp;<a href="https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/media/92/8d/322766/Stellungnahme-Gutachten-SG2406280060.pdf">lobbied</a> for weakening the definition along similar lines.</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3 id="docs-internal-guid-20d6b5a7-7fff-42d2-a79e-520cb267b9e1">Limiting your right to access your own data&nbsp;</h3> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Summary:&nbsp;</strong>Currently, anyone can request a copy of their personal data from any company or organisation that holds it. However, the Commission intends to limit this right if a person ‘abuses’ it.</p> <p dir="ltr">This will severely limit the rights of individuals to know which of their data is being held by Big Tech. For instance,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.workerinfoexchange.org/post/historic-digital-rights-win-for-wie-and-the-adcu-over-uber-and-ola-at-amsterdam-court-of-appeal">in 2023 Uber and Ola drivers who were ‘robo-fired’ won a court case</a> against the company after it refused access to their work-related information. Ola tried to argue that the drivers requests for data amounted to an abuse of data protection rights, an excuse that the Commission now wants to give a legal basis.</p> <p dir="ltr">This will make it harder to hold Big Tech to account and to contest their unlawful practices. “The proposal threatens to dismantle a tool of counter-power”, as the academic René Mahieu&nbsp;<a href="https://verfassungsblog.de/digital-omnibus-right-of-access-to-personal-data/">writes</a>.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">Contrary to the claims made by industry, and adopted by the German Government, it is not citizens who have ‘abused’ their right to access their own data, but tech companies that have disregarded this right. According to the privacy organisation NOYB<a href="https://noyb.eu/sites/default/files/2025-12/noyb%20Digital%20Omnibus%20Report%20V1.pdf"> 90 percent of data access requests are not respected</a>. In one case, it took&nbsp;<a href="https://noyb.eu/en/noyb-win-youtube-ordered-honour-users-right-access">more than five years&nbsp;</a>for Youtube to respect a particular data access request.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Digital Omnibus</dt> <dd> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Proposed changed text to article 12(5) of the GDPR in the digital omnibus in italics: “</strong>Where requests from a data subject are manifestly unfounded or excessive, in particular because of their repetitive character&nbsp;<em>or also, for requests under Article 15 because the data subject abuses the rights conferred by this regulation for purposes other than the protection of their data</em>, the controller may either: a) charge a reasonable fee [...] or refuse to act on the request.</p> <p dir="ltr">The controller shall bear the burden of demonstrating&nbsp;<em>that</em> the&nbsp;<em>request is</em> manifestly unfounded&nbsp;<em>or that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is excessive</em>.”</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt><strong>Big Tech’s lobby position&nbsp;&nbsp;</strong></dt> <dd> <p dir="ltr"><strong>The German Government lobbied for this change&nbsp;</strong>in an&nbsp;<a href="https://noyb.eu/sites/default/files/2025-11/German%20Proposal%20for%20simplification%20of%20the%20GDPR.pdf">influential but controversial position paper</a>. What has largely gone under the radar, however, is that these proposals were actually&nbsp;<a href="https://www.lobbycontrol.de/pressemitteilung/digitalgipfel-weniger-datenschutz-mehr-macht-fuer-big-tech-123225/">pushed</a> by Big Tech companies.</p> <p dir="ltr">In a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.lobbyregister.bundestag.de/inhalte-der-interessenvertretung/stellungnahmengutachtensuche/SG2510270013">lobby paper</a> dated 16 August 2025,&nbsp;<strong>Google</strong> called on the German Government to "Introduce a ‘disproportionate efforts’ exemption to compliance with Articles 15-22 GDPR". With regard to Article 12(5), Google proposed the following addition highlighted in bold:&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">“Where requests from a data subject are manifestly unfounded or excessive, in particular because of their repetitive character,&nbsp;<strong>or, taking into account the scope of the processing and the cost of implementation, where responding to the request would involve a disproportionate effort</strong>, the controller may either: (a) charge a reasonable fee taking into account the administrative costs of providing the information or communication or taking the action requested; or (b) refuse to act on the request.”</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3 id="docs-internal-guid-0be98fd3-7fff-5dd0-ab4d-99f12b489c19"><strong>Using your personal data for training AI</strong></h3> <p dir="ltr">Generative AI models are being trained on enormous amounts of data. The Commission intends to permit the training of AI models with personal data, including highly sensitive data such as sexuality, political beliefs, or ethnicity, without active consent. People’s data will only be protected from being used for training AI models if they explicitly opt-out.</p> <p dir="ltr">Tech companies can basically hoover up any personal data on the internet to train their AI models without active consent (opt-out would still be possible). The protection of sensitive data for training AI such as political beliefs, union membership or sexuality is also weakened.</p> <p dir="ltr">There is a risk of ‘data leakage’ whereby AI systems reproduce the personal data it has been trained on or produce fake information. In one such case a journalist was<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-04/ai-artificial-intelligence-hallucinations-defamation-chatgpt/104518612"> falsely accused by a Microsoft chatbot of child abuse</a> when in fact he had just published articles on criminal court cases about it. The AI system, in essence a statistical programme, had conflated this information and had made him out to be a criminal.</p> <p dir="ltr">Major tech companies such as Meta, Google and X stand to benefit as they can train their AI models with massive troves of personal data collected through their platforms.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">Big Tech companies are spending enormous amounts,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/31/big-tech-ai-spending-billions-microsoft-google-software-subscriptions.html">possibly as much as US$550 billion in 2026</a>, to dominate the AI market. Loosening rules on AI data collection plays directly into their hands.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Digital Omnibus</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-3b899312-7fff-49a3-e7a2-3628b41a1914" dir="ltr"><strong>Proposed text:&nbsp;</strong></p> <ul> <li dir="ltr"><strong>The digital omnibus introduces a new article 88c in the GDPR introducing the use of personal data for AI training as a legitimate interest</strong>:&nbsp;<em>“Where the processing of personal data is necessary for the interests of the controller in the context of the development and operation of an AI system such processing may be pursued for legitimate interests within the meaning of Article 6(1)(f)”</em><br>&nbsp;</li> <li dir="ltr"><strong>The digital omnibus also waters down protections on using sensitive data for AI training by introducing article 9(5) to the GDPR</strong>:<em> “For processing referred to in point (k) of paragraph 2, appropriate organisational and technical measures shall be implemented to avoid the collection and otherwise processing of special categories of personal data. Where, despite the implementation of such measures, the controller identifies special categories of personal data in the datasets used for training, testing or validation or in the AI system or AI model, the controller shall remove such data. If removal of those data requires disproportionate effort, the controller shall in any event effectively protect without undue delay such data from being used to produce outputs, from being disclosed or otherwise made available to third parties.”</em></li> </ul> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Big Tech’s lobby position</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-3eeab578-7fff-3789-9ae3-187d8abc0314" dir="ltr">This has been a top priority of Big Tech lobbying. Almost every trade association and company has lobbied both the Commission and member states on that topic.</p> <p dir="ltr">Big Tech lobby organisation<strong>&nbsp;</strong><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33088547_en"><strong>CCIA</strong></a>: “It is crucial to reaffirm the role of legitimate interest as a lawful basis under the GDPR for responsible AI innovation, moving beyond the non-binding EDPB opinion to provide harmonised legal certainty for AI training.”</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33103770_en"><strong>DigitalEurope</strong></a>: “Reinforce the use of ‘legitimate interest’ as a ground to process personal data for key use cases such as product development – including of AI models – and security.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Big Tech lobby organisation<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/DOT%20Europe%20letter%20to%20Danish%20government.pdf"><strong> Dot Europe</strong></a> (in a lobby letter to the Danish Government): “GDPR Article 9 strictly limits the processing of special category data (e.g., race, ethnicity, health), posing challenges for AI development, particularly in healthcare. AI models need access to sensitive data to ensure accuracy, fairness, and cultural relevance.”</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3 id="docs-internal-guid-670509c7-7fff-9a7b-7fc9-3369e98f1371"><strong>Weakening rules on automated decision-making&nbsp;</strong></h3> <p dir="ltr">Currently, automated systems cannot be used to make decisions with legal effect or for online profiling. A human must be in the loop. The Commission’s proposal is a structural shift from a general prohibition on automated decision-making but with a few narrow exceptions towards an authorisation regime where a company can employ automated decision-making whenever it thinks this is “necessary”.</p> <p dir="ltr">Important decisions including credit scoring, ‘robo-firings’, profiling, and welfare benefits could in the future be taken by automated decision-making without human intervention. This change will increasingly expose people to possibly flawed and biased algorithms which could make life-changing decisions, including if you get a loan or are fired from your job. Moreover these algorithms are generally black boxes, meaning it can be hard to uncover evidence of bias. Scandals in the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/10/xenophobic-machines-dutch-child-benefit-scandal/">Netherlands</a> and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-66130105">Australia</a> already show how thousands of people can be wrongly targeted with devastating effects.</p> <p dir="ltr">In 2024, a subsidiary of the food delivery platform Glovo&nbsp;<a href="https://edri.org/our-work/italian-dpas-e5m-fine-against-glovo-marks-milestone-for-workers-rights/">was fined</a> €5 million by the Italian data protection authority under article 22 of the GDPR for violating workers' rights. The platform had used its rating system to automatically assign orders or ‘deactivate’ (read: ‘fire’) workers based on their ratings.</p> <p dir="ltr">While the drastic weakening of article 22 will benefit a range of different sectors, from the insurance and banking sector to gig economy companies, Big Tech is also set to profit.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">At the moment, social media giants employ thousands of underpaid workers to review harmful or illegal content on social media. This change will allow Big Tech companies to fully automate content moderation, cutting these costs essentially down to zero. Since the inauguration of Trump, Meta has<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/apr/23/meta-hastily-changed-moderation-policy-with-little-regard-to-impact-says-oversight-board"> fired thousands of content moderators</a>. Amnesty International<a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/02/meta-new-policy-changes/"> has warned&nbsp;</a>that replacing content moderators with automated systems could amplify the most harmful content including content inciting racial hatred.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Digital Omnibus</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-5e95c669-7fff-85a3-b42e-c9abac657944" dir="ltr"><strong>Proposed text to Article 22 of the GDPR in italics</strong>: “<em>A decision which produces legal effects for a data subject or similarly significantly affects him or her may be based solely on automated processing, including profiling, only where that decision</em>: (a) is necessary for entering into, or performance of, a contract between the data subject and a data controller<em> regardless of whether the decision could be taken otherwise than by solely automated means</em>.”</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Big Tech’s lobby position&nbsp;&nbsp;</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-a08c610f-7fff-3c44-3663-0ddb62903a26" dir="ltr">While Big Tech companies have been complaining about the overlap between article 22 of the GDPR with the AI Act and the Platform Work Directive, it seems it was mainly insurance sector lobbying that was decisive in rolling back the protection on automated decision-making (Big Tech is however still set to benefit from this change). In 2023, the European Court of Justice<a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-634/21"> ruled in a landmark case&nbsp;</a>that credit scores based on profiling cannot be used by banks and insurance companies to decide on granting a loan or other financial products. The Digital Omnibus might now undermine that ruling.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33088532_en"><strong>Insurance Europe</strong></a>: "Automated-decision making should be allowed as long as it is subject to safeguard mechanisms. To ensure that Art. 22 does not become an obstacle to the development of new digital solutions, it should be clarified that it is a right of the data subject and not an ex-ante prohibition."</p> <p dir="ltr">Big Tech lobby organisation&nbsp;<a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33088547_en"><strong>CCIA</strong></a>: “The definitions of the General Data Protection Regulation’s (GDPR) ‘automated individual decision-making’ (Article 22), the AI Act’s ‘AI system’ (Article 3(1)), and the Platform Work Directive’s (PWD) for automated decision-making systems often overlap.”</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3 id="docs-internal-guid-7d6fe0e9-7fff-bd1c-753a-6bddaf70988d"><strong>Folding parts of ePrivacy into the GDPR</strong></h3> <p dir="ltr">Cookies are the backbone of the AdTech industry, used to trace our online activities in order to target us with personalised ads. Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy directive requires websites and apps to ask for prior consent before storing cookies. The Commission now wants to ‘fold’ parts of article 5(3) into the GDPR. This replaces a categorical, consent-based mechanism with a more flexible framework based on balancing and exceptions.</p> <p dir="ltr">Folding ePrivacy into the GDPR creates a more permissive system that allows companies to use exceptions to track behaviour. The&nbsp;<a href="https://netzpolitik.org/2025/databroker-files-all-you-need-to-know-about-how-adtech-data-exposes-the-eu-to-espionage/">Databroker Files</a> demonstrated that commercial datasets which contain millions of locations could actually be used to spy on the public in Europe. These and other examples show the risks to our privacy are real: reporting shows how the vast trade in location data from smartphones can be traced back to individuals showing where they were at a specific time.</p> <p dir="ltr">It will allow them to do even more of what they already do: track you&nbsp;<a href="https://techcrunch.com/2020/12/10/france-fines-google-120m-and-amazon-42m-for-dropping-tracking-cookies-without-consent/">without your consent</a>. Big Tech firms have been&nbsp;<a href="https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/01/digging-into-googles-push-to-freeze-eprivacy/">lobbying for years against ePrivacy</a> as it could undermine their invasive business model based on surveillance ads.&nbsp;</p> <p>Several Big Tech firms have moreover&nbsp;<a href="https://techcrunch.com/2020/12/10/france-fines-google-120m-and-amazon-42m-for-dropping-tracking-cookies-without-consent/">faced fines&nbsp;</a>for tracking users without consent. This change might let these companies get away with their most problematic practices.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Digital Omnibus</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-a1220957-7fff-28f4-8fce-45d6d0d0f6b0" dir="ltr"><strong>New text added to article 5(3) of the ePrivacy directive in italics</strong>: “<em>This paragraph shall not apply if the subscriber or user is a natural person, and the information stored or accessed constitutes or leads to the processing of personal data.”</em></p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>A new GDPR article 88a takes over instead which also introduces a series of exceptions to ask for consent</strong> including when “creating aggregated information about the usage of an online service to measure the audience of such a service, where it is carried out by the controller of that online service solely for its own use”.</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Big Tech’s lobby position</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-616d9873-7fff-185e-3391-0eaa46c03ead" dir="ltr">The telecom sector, publishers and the tech industry have lobbied for years against strong privacy protections as guaranteed by the ePrivacy directive. In 2018 a major Big Tech driven lobby campaign&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/power-lobbies/2018/06/shutting-down-eprivacy-lobby-bandwagon-targets-council">prevented</a> efforts to strengthen the ePrivacy Directive. A court document showed Google revealing that “we have been successful in slowing down and delaying the [ePrivacy Regulation] process and have been working behind the scenes hand in hand with the other companies.” The digital omnibus is another step in dismantling ePrivacy protections with all major players pushing for the changes as proposed by the Commission.</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33088017_en"><strong>Google</strong></a>: “The most effective simplification is to delete Article 5(3) from the ePrivacy directive and govern all data processing related to cookies under the GDPR risk-based framework. Alternatively, a significant step toward simplification would be to amend Article 5(3) to extend the scope of permitted exemptions to allow specific, low-risk processing activities that are essential both for the functioning of a safe and sustainable digital ecosystem as well as for user experience. This would create clear exemptions for functions such as first-party audience measurement, ad frequency capping, and anti-fraud measures—allowing them to operate without generating unnecessary consent requests.”&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/Microsoft%20lobby%20paper%20data%20union%20strategy.pdf"><strong>Microsoft</strong></a><strong>:</strong> “The “cookie rule” in article 5 (3) eP[rivacy] D[irective] could be moved to the GDPR or, if kept in, rendered more flexible by allowing cookie placement without consent in a wider range of circumstances, e.g. for security, software updates, anti-fraud, and analytics.”</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2 id="docs-internal-guid-e42d9ba0-7fff-743a-578b-669027a52594"><strong>How the Commission aims to weaken the AI Act</strong></h2> <p dir="ltr">"Europe is open for AI and for business!" Ursula von der Leyen tweeted during the AI Action Summit in Paris. In its single-minded priority to “win the global AI race”, the Commission is slashing rules and protections against risky AI systems. A year-long&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/preparing-roll-back-digital-rights-commissions-secretive-meetings-industry">lobby campaign</a> by the Trump administration and Big Tech to delay the implementation of the AI Act has clearly paid off.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3 id="docs-internal-guid-f2d642be-7fff-e6de-2e0c-7fe036554457"><strong>No Checks and Balances for risky AI systems&nbsp;</strong></h3> <p dir="ltr">A controversial win for Big Tech firms during the AI Act negotiations was allowing companies to “self-assess” if they believe an AI system is high-risk. To compensate for that loophole, industry had to register these AI systems in a public database. Now this transparency failsafe will also be removed, basically giving tech companies a free hand in deciding if an AI system is risky without any public oversight.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">The risk to fundamental rights these high-risk AI systems pose are far from hypothetical.&nbsp; From<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54698858">&nbsp;algorithmic-powered employee firings</a> to<a href="https://www.axios.com/2020/08/19/england-exams-algorithm-grading">&nbsp;biased algorithms that disadvantage students</a> based on their socio-economic background, highly problematic AI systems are already in circulation. The AI Act lets companies self-assess if these AI systems are high-risk or not, and should therefore comply with requirements such as proper risk management, accuracy, and transparency.</p> <p dir="ltr">The digital omnibus will worsen an already huge loophole in the AI Act with potentially disastrous impacts on our rights.</p> <p dir="ltr">Not only can AI companies already self-assess if their AI systems are risky, the digital omnibus will remove any possibility of public oversight of that assessment, giving these companies a blank check to do as they please without any accountability mechanism.</p> <p dir="ltr">In<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7396855577064398849/"> a reaction on LinkedIn</a> Daniel Leufer from the NGO Access Now called this “the biggest, most ridiculous loophole in the AI Act that will let unscrupulous providers unilaterally exempt themselves from the AI Act's obligations with oversight”.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Digital Omnibus</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-aa943702-7fff-4db2-83eb-5cc135dae204" dir="ltr"><strong>Paragraph 2 of article 49 of the AI Act is deleted.</strong></p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Big Tech’s lobby position</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-27e01355-7fff-f562-cfea-5cf2ab5716da" dir="ltr">The Commission’s proposals are completely in line with the lobby position of the two lobby organisations Dot Europe and DigitalEurope that count Big Tech members as its members.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33103770_en"><strong>DigitalEurope</strong></a>: “Abolish the mandatory registration of AI systems, along with the related EU and Member State databases.”</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33087422_en"><strong>Dot Europe</strong></a><strong>:</strong> “when a provider of AI systems provides concrete justifications that its AI system does not pose a significant risk of harm to the health, safety or fundamental rights of natural persons per Article 6(3), it should not be required to register its system in the high-risk AI database per Article 49.”&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3 id="docs-internal-guid-6a019008-7fff-431e-f228-8639b04b8077"><strong>Delay in the implementation of the AI Act</strong></h3> <p dir="ltr">The Commission intends to postpone the implementation of part of the AI Regulation by almost a year and a half. This means giving Big Tech more than 12 months to continue releasing potentially risky systems onto the market without any safeguards.</p> <p dir="ltr">This proposal would enable companies to continue to release risky AI systems for at least a year onto the market without any safeguards. Moreover, as the<a href="https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/CDT-Europe-Brief-Digital-Omnibus-Threatens-Hard-Won-AI-Safeguards.pdf"> Center for Democracy and Technology points out</a>, delaying the parts of the AI Act on high-risk AI systems, will also obstruct the ban of the most dangerous AI systems, leaving dangerous practices such as&nbsp;<a href="https://edri.org/our-work/emotion-misrecognition/">emotion recognition systems</a> and facial recognition AI used in public spaces on the market for longer.</p> <p dir="ltr">Delaying is<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023/11/how-pesticide-lobby-sabotaging-eu-pesticide-reduction-law-sur">&nbsp;a tried and tested industry lobbying tactic</a>. It will give Big Tech more time to further water down the AI Act. Already, tech lobbyists are&nbsp;<a href="https://ccianet.org/news/2025/12/dont-let-digital-simplification-stall-eu-member-states-warned-by-tech-sector/">calling</a> for the further deregulation of the AI Act.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Big Tech’s lobby position&nbsp;</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-b5a2e1d9-7fff-3947-9538-0a5ddb96be61" dir="ltr">A delay in the implementation of the AI Act is a central demand in a&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/preparing-roll-back-digital-rights-commissions-secretive-meetings-industry">year-long tech lobby campaign</a> which was backed by the Trump administration.</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33088547_en"><strong>CCIA</strong></a>: “The first priority should be to delay AI Act implementation until at least 12 months after relevant guidance, codes of practice, or technical standards become available.”</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33103770_en"><strong>DigitalEurope</strong></a>: “Delay the application of high-risk AI requirements until at least 12 months after relevant harmonised standards are published, allowing sufficient time for adaptation.”</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33089184_en"><strong>Meta</strong></a><strong>:&nbsp;</strong>“It is critical to first pause the implementation and enforcement of the [AI Act]. This pause will provide the necessary time to undertake meaningful reforms without risking the EU falling behind in the global AI race.&nbsp;</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h3 id="docs-internal-guid-25437b55-7fff-a246-ab30-33677ccc0348"><strong>Using your sensitive data to train AI&nbsp;</strong></h3> <p dir="ltr">The AI Act under narrow circumstances allowed the use of sensitive data for mitigation of high-risk AI models to prevent bias and discrimination. This exception is now expanded to all AI systems based on the assessment of companies if the processing is necessary (see also above as part of the changes to the GDPR).</p> <p dir="ltr">This will allow intrusive gathering of your most sensitive personal data to train AI systems. Also see above “Using your personal data for training AI.</p> <p dir="ltr">While Big Tech claims that more data is necessary for detecting bias,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X25003173">research</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/EDRi_Beyond-Debiasing-Report_Online.pdf">suggests</a> that debiasing -&nbsp; certain statistical techniques to ‘correct’ bias in databases that are used to train AI - is often ineffective and is unable to detect the many forms and contexts in which discrimination and bias manifests. Instead, it is a technical fix that enables Big Tech companies to collect yet more sensitive personal data to train their AI models while creating the illusion of ethical AI, all while encouraging the widespread adoption of AI across all sectors of society.</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Digital Omnibus</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-14fc2415-7fff-f8e5-5791-dc9231e90f97" dir="ltr"><strong>The digital omnibus introduces article 4(a) to the AI Act</strong>: “To the extent necessary to ensure bias detection and correction in relation to high-risk AI systems in accordance with Article 10 (2), points (f) and (g), of this Regulation, providers of such systems may exceptionally process special categories of personal data.”</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><dl class="ckeditor-accordion"> <dt>Big Tech’s lobby position</dt> <dd> <p id="docs-internal-guid-a8b18b69-7fff-bdab-e1e3-069b36e29e69" dir="ltr">The tech lobby constantly portrays data protection as a major obstacle to AI training and has therefore repeatedly lobbied, either specifically or in general terms, for the weakening of data protection.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33088017_en"><strong>Google</strong></a>: “We propose extending the allowance in Article 10(5) to permit the necessary data processing for bias detection and correction across all AI systems and general purpose AI models. Extending this provision will provide a harmonized legal basis for developers to proactively build the fair, representative, and trustworthy AI that aligns with the EU’s core values and benefits all citizens. It will also reduce the risk of AI models and systems perpetuating or amplifying societal discrimination, irrespective of their specific AI Act risk classification.”&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">Big Tech lobby organisation<strong>&nbsp;</strong><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14855-Simplification-digital-package-and-omnibus/F33087752_en"><strong>Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)</strong></a>: “The AI Act's Article 10(5) allowance for special categories of personal data processing for bias mitigation should be extended to the training of all AI systems and GPAI models, not just those classified as "high-risk.”</p> </dd> </dl> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><h2 id="docs-internal-guid-c7899791-7fff-10f8-e917-ea91e4494d4c"><strong>A Big Tech-far right alliance in the making?</strong></h2> <p dir="ltr">The Commission’s digital omnibus received widespread criticism. Civil society organisations, think tanks, experts, and political groups in the European Parliament from the left to the centre all perceived the Commission’s proposals as handouts to Big Tech and the Trump administration.</p> <p dir="ltr">But while the Social Democrats in the Parliament called the digital omnibus&nbsp;<a href="https://www.socialistsanddemocrats.eu/newsroom/sds-dont-deregulate-and-weaken-eus-digital-legal-framework-protects-people">unacceptable deregulation</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/ursula-von-der-leyen-eu-parliament-showdown-digital-red-tape-crusade/">far right parties</a> quickly came to the support of the Commission.</p> <p dir="ltr">Big Tech lobbying of the European Parliament also shifted in higher gear. Lobbying of the far-right seems to have become a particular priority for Meta, and to a lesser extent Google. While during the previous parliamentary mandate, Meta only met once with a far-right MEP, during this parliamentary mandate it has&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/media/6519">already met 38 times&nbsp;</a>with MEPs from the ECR, the Patriots and the Europe of Sovereign Nations Group. The digital omnibus is a key priority in those meetings. In the week of 8 December 2025, Meta met with four far right MEPs with most of those meetings mentioning the digital omnibus.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">Google has also not shied away from meeting far-right MEPs. A few days after the launch of the digital omnibus, the Head of Public Affairs of Google France&nbsp;<a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DRfV_JpDdhf/?img_index=2">joined a dinner party</a> in Strasbourg hosted by six French MEPs from the far right Rassemblement National.&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-image field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-large ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field-name-field-media-image"> <img loading="lazy" src="https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/styles/image_l/public/2026-01/Screenshot%20from%202026-01-13%2010-06-50.png?itok=gFs9cpmp" width="800" height="579" alt="Google France at a dinner party of far-right MEPs of Rassemblement National " class="image-style-image-l"> </div> <div class="caption-source"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-description field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The Head of Public Affairs of Google France&nbsp;joined at a dinner party in Strasbourg hosted by six MEPs from the far right Rassemblement National.</p> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-source field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>Souce: Instagram</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p dir="ltr">Big Tech's lobbying strategy in the US, where it has&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global/2025/dec/15/ai-trump-openai-google-data-centers">aligned</a> itself with the Trump administration, now appears to have been extended to the European Parliament.</p> <p dir="ltr">As outlined in this article, the digital omnibus is not just an unprecedented attack on our digital rights – it also closely mirrors Big Tech lobbying positions. The Commission’s deregulation agenda threatens to undermine years of progress in reining these tech giants and protecting our privacy.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">The emerging far right - Big Tech alliance in the European Parliament points towards an even more alarming trend. It should now be clear to all that the Commission’s deregulation agenda isn't just opening the door to Big Tech, it's inviting the far right in.</p> <p dir="ltr">However, this outcome is not inevitable. The European Parliament now has a crucial opportunity to stop this dangerous proposal and defend the hard-won data protection safeguards.</p> <p dir="ltr">The Digital Omnibus has received massive pushback, from civil society organsations, from within parliament and from member states, including Malta, which recently requested more time to scrutinise the proposal.</p> <p dir="ltr">What happens next depends on whether we manage to increase the pressure.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">Now is the time to make our voices heard and make it crystal clear to the European Parliament and national governments that they must stand up for our privacy, freedom of expression and democratic control over technology, and reject the Digital Omnibus.</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-name-field-related-articles"> <div class="field-label-above">Related articles</div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">19.11.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/preparing-roll-back-digital-rights-commissions-secretive-meetings-industry" hreflang="en">Preparing a roll-back of digital rights: Commission's secretive meetings with industry</a> </div> </div> <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-related ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">29.10.2025</div> <div class="field field-name-node-title"> <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/big-tech-lobby-budgets-hit-record-levels" hreflang="en">Big Tech lobby budgets hit record levels</a> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Wed, 14 Jan 2026 06:00:00 +0000 Bram Vranken 2297 at https://corporateeurope.org https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/new-analysis-exposes-deep-influence-big-tech-eu-commissions-roll-back-digital-rights <div class="node node--type-article node--view-mode-rss ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="date-author"> <div class="field field--name-node-post-date field--type-ds field--label-hidden field__item">13.01.2026</div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-introduction field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><strong>Brussels, 14 January 2026</strong> - Published last November, the Digital Omnibus represents an unprecedented rollback of people’s rights, with Big Tech’s fingerprints all over it. New analysis by lobby watchdogs Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and LobbyControl exposes the close alignment between the EU Commission's digital deregulation proposals and Big Tech’s lobby demands.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-paragraphs field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p dir="ltr">Furthermore, Meta and Google are cosying up to far-right Members of the European Parliament, suggesting they see the far-right as an ally in rolling back key digital rights in Europe.</p> <p dir="ltr">An <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/article-article-how-big-tech-shaped-eus-roll-back-digital-rights ">article-by-article comparison</a> of the Digital Omnibus with lobbying papers from Google, Meta, Microsoft and their trade associations reveals that many of the most consequential changes to EU digital law reflect long-standing corporate priorities, including weaker data protection, fewer checks on artificial intelligence, and reduced public oversight.</p> <p dir="ltr">These changes would make it harder to hold powerful tech companies accountable, while exposing people to greater risks from surveillance, profiling, and automated decision-making. By weakening oversight and accountability mechanisms, the Digital Omnibus could create a regulatory environment that favours both corporate concentration of power and authoritarian political agendas.</p> <p dir="ltr">Worryingly, while the EU Commission is promoting this deregulation agenda to make the EU 'competitive', it is actually re-enforcing Big Tech’s monopoly power.</p> <p dir="ltr">Beyond the troubling proposals, CEO and LobbyControl also warn for a coalition between the centre-right European People's Party (EPP) and far-right groups in the European Parliament to push through the Digital Omnibus. Big Tech lobbying strategies appear to be increasingly focused on engagement with far-right political actors. Meta and Google have both significantly increased meetings with far-right Members of the European Parliament in the current mandate, with deregulation of digital rules a central topic of discussion.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">Civil society organisations are calling on the European Parliament to halt the “bus” in its current form and reject any changes that chip away at hard-won digital rights – and democracy – under the guise of simplification.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Bram Vranken, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner</strong>, says:&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">“There is an alarming overlap between the key changes proposed by the Digital Omnibus and Big Tech lobby positions. The Digital Omnibus is the biggest Christmas present Big Tech could have wished for.</p> <p dir="ltr">In its misguided quest for competitiveness, the Commission is sacrificing fundamental rights. It is now up to the Parliament to stop the Omnibus from wrecking our digital rights.”</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Felix Duffy, LobbyControl researcher and campaigner</strong>, says:&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">“Weakening EU digital rules would favour both Big Tech concentration of power and authoritarian political agendas. At the same time, Meta and Google are actively aligning with far-right Members of the European Parliament to undermine these rules – a dangerous development. Especially now, when these rules are more important than ever to defend our democracy.”</p> <p dir="ltr">&nbsp;ENDS</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>For media inquiries, please contact</strong></p> <p dir="ltr">Bram Vranken, Corporate Europe Observatory researcher and campaigner</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="#" data-mail-to="oenz/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +32 497 131464</p> <p dir="ltr">Marcella Via, Corporate Europe Observatory press officer</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="#" data-mail-to="zrqvn/ng/pbecbengrrhebcr/qbg/bet" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>; +32 489 622233</p> <p dir="ltr">Fidélité Niwenshuti, LobbyControl press officer</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="#" data-mail-to="cerffr/ng/yboolpbageby/qbg/qr" data-replace-inner="@email">@email</a>, +49 (0)30/ 4 67 26 72 11</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Notes to editor</strong></p> <ul> <li dir="ltr">The full article-by-article analysis, “Article by article, how Big Tech Shaped the Commission’s Digital Deregulation Proposal”, is available <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/article-article-how-big-tech-shaped-eus-roll-back-digital-rights">here</a>.<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2026/01/article-article-how-big-tech-shaped-eus-roll-back-digital-rights"> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</a></li> <li dir="ltr">Article detailing Big Tech’s lobby campaign to influence the Digital Omnibus, and how the Commission has set up secretive meetings with industry from November:&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/11/preparing-roll-back-digital-rights-commissions-secretive-meetings-industry">Preparing a roll-back of digital rights: Commission's secretive meetings with industry | Corporate Europe Observatory</a></li> <li dir="ltr">Update on the tech industry’s lobby firepower from October 2025:&nbsp;<a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/big-tech-lobby-budgets-hit-record-levels">Big Tech lobby budgets hit record levels | Corporate Europe Observatory</a></li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <section class="field field--name-field-comments field--type-comment field--label-above comment-wrapper"> </section> </div> Tue, 13 Jan 2026 09:41:00 +0000 Marcella Via 2298 at https://corporateeurope.org