The EU needs to resist the siren song of deregulation, as it would only create uncertainty for businesses, weaken sustainability-driven competitiveness, and diminish citizens’ well-being and trust, says Danny Jacobs, general director of the Flanders environmental network Bond Beter Leefmilieu - BBL. He shared with us the concerns of environmental NGOs regarding the EU’s latest proposal to simplify regulations, which they fear may sideline the key ambitions of the European Green Deal.

Could you comment on the latest Commission initiatives on deregulation, such as the Competitiveness Compass or the Omnibus package?

The European Commission has presented an economically driven agenda of deregulation and simplification, threatening to jeopardise hard-won environmental, social and economic achievements. This tension between adaptation and preservation of the European acquis makes it difficult for the EU to steer a clear course.

The Commisssion’s Competitiveness Compass, presented in late January, echoes corporate concerns over energy costs and economic challenges, but sidelines key priorities such as zero pollution and citizens’ wellbeing, failing to guide Europe’s economy towards a clean, prosperous and circular future. The Compass risks leading Europe astray. Promoting competitive decarbonisation without integrating social and environmental objectives undermines the very purpose of EU institutions: to serve and defend the common good.

What worries civil society organisations is the risky 25% simplification target within the Compass. While streamlining regulations is welcome, simplification without thorough assessments could undermine critical health, social, and environmental protections. It is not regulation that hinders business innovation, but rather a lack of clear rules. Further deregulation would only create a climate of uncertainty, penalising first movers – businesses that take the lead – while compromising progress and sustainability.

We also fear that this push for simplification will come at the expense of environmental and social objectives. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D), and the EU taxonomy have many flaws and haven’t gone as far as they could have. Weakening them further from an already low starting point would render these directives meaningless.

Another concrete example sets the scene for what is happening at the moment.  Flanders has faced an immense PFAS problem in recent years: a large part of our territory is polluted by these chemicals, and hundreds of thousands of citizens are affected. A restriction or ban under chemicals legislation (REACH) is seen as the most effective tool for controlling the risks posed by substances, like PFAS, which are used in industrial processes as well as in products (mixtures and articles). If the European Commission were to abandon the importance of strict REACH regulation, it would increase the risk of exposure to dangerous chemicals, which is harmful to public health. Companies would have fewer obligations to seek safe alternatives, which inhibits innovation in sustainable chemistry. Environmental pollution may increase as less stringent rules lead to more hazardous discharges and waste. Consumers are more at risk because products are not as thoroughly checked for toxic substances. This could result in European companies lagging behind in the global transition to safer and more environmentally friendly products, losing market share to competitors who do embrace future-proof innovations.

How hopeful are you about the fate of the Green Deal in light of the newly announced course set by the Commission to boost the European economy?

The European Commission’s 2025 Work Programme presents both promise and peril. While its commitments to decarbonisation and affordable energy signal a potential path towards a cleaner, more resilient Europe, key ambitions of the European Green Deal are at risk of being sidelined. Concerns are mounting over the proposed Omnibus Regulation, which could serve as a backdoor for the deregulation of corporate responsibility under the guise of ‘simplification’. Recent trends show that simplification is too often used to weaken essential safeguards, from chemicals legislation to agriculture. The rushed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform in March 2024, which stripped out green safeguards, is a stark example. Now, the long-overdue REACH revision, once framed as a tool to protect public health and the environment, risks being repackaged as a ‘simplification’ measure to ease industry rules.

Just a few months ago, President von der Leyen promised to stay the course on all European Green Deal goals. And yet the current Work Programme tells a different story, deprioritising the very goals where action is most urgent – particularly the Zero Pollution ambition.

Do you see that deregulation, as proposed, could have negative impact on sustainability and the progress achieved so far?

The EU needs to resist the siren song of deregulation, which would only undermine regulatory certainty and predictability for businesses, weaken long-term sustainability-led competitiveness, and erode citizens’ wellbeing and trust.

The EU needs to ensure that cutting red tape does not mean cutting environmental and public health protections. Smart implementation should strengthen, not undermine, the European Green Deal. Weakening key environmental and social protections under the guise of cutting red tape is not a strategy for economic strength. It is a reckless step backward that will sabotage the very rules designed to future-proof our economy. All this reinforces the alarming risk of undoing a decade of progress on sustainability.

At the same time, civil society is under growing pressure across the EU, with restrictive foreign agent laws, protest crackdowns, and funding cuts threatening fundamental rights. The European Democracy Shield and the upcoming EU Civil Society Strategy must deliver more than just symbolic commitments – they must provide legal protections, sustainable funding, and structured civil dialogue with EU institutions. The Commission’s Work Programme must prioritise safeguarding democracy by strengthening civil society. Without an independent and well-resourced civil society, European democracy itself is at risk.

Danny Jacobs is the general director of Bond Beter Leefmilieu - BBL (a federation of 135 environmental NGOs in Flanders, Belgium) and a Belgian representative in the European Environmental Bureau (Europe’s largest network of environmental citizens’ organisations, representing some 30 million individual members and supporters).