{"id":120713,"date":"2026-08-28T11:53:12","date_gmt":"2026-08-28T09:53:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/?p=120713"},"modified":"2026-08-28T12:35:45","modified_gmt":"2026-08-28T10:35:45","slug":"commission-reply-on-better-regulation-offers-little-reassurance-to-civil-society","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/de\/commission-reply-on-better-regulation-offers-little-reassurance-to-civil-society\/","title":{"rendered":"Commission reply on Better Regulation offers little reassurance to civil society"},"content":{"rendered":"

Brussels, 28 August 2026 –<\/strong> The European Commission has replied<\/a> to an open letter from more than 60 civil society organisations, trade unions and public interest groups warning that its planned overhaul of the Better Regulation framework would privilege corporate interests. The letter, coordinated by Corporate Europe Observatory and published on 29 June 2026, was addressed to President von der Leyen and the College of Commissioners.<\/p>\n

The reply, signed on 17 August by the Director for Simplification, Implementation and Enforcement in the Commission’s Secretariat-General, addresses most of the points raised but resolves few of them.<\/p>\n

The Commission states that it intends to prepare more impact assessments rather than fewer, that derogations from standard procedure will be strictly limited and properly documented, and that targeted consultations will complement rather than replace public ones. Signatories welcome those commitments while noting that the reply leaves the substance of their concerns untouched.<\/p>\n

On urgency procedures, the objection in the letter was that the criteria are broadly and loosely defined, allowing impact assessments and consultations to be dropped too easily. Documentation after the fact does not answer that. On the proposed “matrix of key impacts”, the Commission says it is neither focused only on costs nor uniform across initiatives, but still does not explain what it would mean in practice. On assessments of substantial amendments by Parliament and Council, the reliance on simple cost calculations risks introducing crude cost benefit analysis that ignores wider costs to society and the cost of inaction. On gold-plating, the Commission maintains that its target is unnecessary or disproportionate national burdens rather than social and environmental standards, without clarifying where that line falls.<\/p>\n

The reply comes as the Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolkit are revised over the coming months. Signatories say the detail of that revision, rather than the assurances in the reply, will determine whether the framework continues to support evidence-based policymaking and meaningful public participation.<\/p>\n

ENDS<\/strong><\/p>\n

For media inquiries, please contact<\/strong><\/p>\n

Frederik Hafen: frederik.hafen@eeb.org<\/a><\/p>\n

Kenneth Haar: kenneth@corporateeurope.org(opens in new tab)<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Frank Ey: Frank.EY@akwien.at(opens in new tab)<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Notes to editor<\/strong><\/p>\n