NGO opponents of the EU’s omnibus process to reform non-financial reporting have made a formal complaint that it is “undemocratic”, “untransparent” and “rushed”.

A group of not-for-profits have made the claim to the European Ombudsman even as officials work on the process that will likely make significant changes to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).

European policymakers have already voted to postpone the two major pieces of legislation, but work is now underway on more detailed changes to simplify its requirements and soften its provisions.

The group—among them, Friends of the Earth Europe, Global Witness and ClientEarth—issued a statement saying: “The omnibus proposal was made without any public consultation sidelining civil society, with a lack of evidence or environmental and social impact assessments and with a primary focus on narrow industry interests.

“This reckless move not only weakens sustainability rules but also damages public trust in the EU’s democratic foundations.”

The CSRD and CSDDD impose wide ranging disclosure requirements on EU companies and international businesses, with large operations in Europe.

However, they became a major point of contention in Brussels as well as other capitals across the continent when former European Central Bank president, Mario Draghi  issued a report claiming the reporting rules were a “major source of regulatory burden”.

Both France and Germany  called to postpone the new rules and, in February, the European Commission published its plans  to reshape the requirements.

The omnibus proposes a delay to the introduction of CSRD and CSDDD until 2028 and will remove 80% of companies from their scope. In the revised proposal, only companies of 1,000 employees or more and with a turnover of €500m will be affected.

Those implementing the due diligence legislation will be entitled to draw information only from first-tier suppliers and not further down their supply chains.

There are also proposals to ensure SMEs apply only voluntary standards and limit the volume of information they are forced to supply to large companies complying with the new rules.

Another plan will see the assurance requirements for CSRD shift from mandatory “reasonable” assurance to a “limited” check on reporting.

Many see the changes as a “watering” down of EU green reporting when there is little time left in the climate crisis to change corporate behaviour.

The NGOs accuse the Commission of pushing ahead with reforms while “failing” to gather impact information about the proposed changes; using closed-door meetings “dominated by oil and gas industry interests”; and failing to assess whether the changes “align with the EU’s climate neutrality targets” which, they claim, would be “in breach” of obligations under European Climate Law.

The not-for-profits argue the new proposals will not help with EU competitiveness.

“Strong sustainability laws like the CSDDD and CSRD are key to the EU’s competitive advantage in a global market where consumers and investors increasingly demand responsible corporate action,” the coalition added in their statement.

Only the postponement of CSRD and CSDDD is so far settled. The rest of their provisions remain hotly contested.