Green Deal: towards a massive regulatory pause?

In 2019, Ursula von der Leyen made the European Green Deal the European Union’s (EU) ‘new growth strategy’. In 2025, however, the compass for competitiveness, which is supposed to make the European Commission a Commission ‘of growth and investment’, makes no explicit mention of the Green Deal. Relegated to the background and attacked from all sides in Europe, the Green Deal seems to be under more scrutiny than ever.

As a driving force in promoting the European target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030, as well as during the related legislative negotiations held under its Presidency of the Council of the EU, France would be justified in defending it. However, recent statements by its political leaders suggest the opposite.

Simplification, deregulation or suspension?

In May 2023, Emmanuel Macron called for a ‘European regulatory pause’ on environmental standards. What then appeared to be doctrinal uncertainty about how to respond to the critical rhetoric of the European far right now seems to be a harbinger of deregulatory ambitions. Since then, the President has clarified his remarks, citing the need for a ‘massive regulatory pause [to] review regulations, including recent ones, that hinder our ability to innovate’.

Several ministers have recently called on the European Commission to suspend potential fines that could affect the automotive sector for failing to meet CO2 emission targets for cars in 2025. However, the imposition of penalties, which is hypothetical and overestimated, is primarily due to the culpable procrastination of certain car manufacturers, coupled with an inadequate policy to stimulate demand.

Another request is to postpone the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) by two years, but above all to ‘indefinitely delay’ the application of the new Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). In addition to contradicting the fact that this issue was initially pushed by France, such a request plays into the hands of the far right. By giving substance to the proposals of the Rassemblement National for the European elections, the executive is helping to legitimise such rhetoric and ceding further ground to populist forces that exploit climate policies for electoral purposes.

However, the discourse on simplification is entirely legitimate, provided it is not misused. To be effective, simplification must be based on an inventory, followed by a detailed assessment of the initial rationale behind the rules deemed too restrictive. It must be accompanied by a thorough examination to identify the source of the problem: overly burdensome or complex European standards, over-transposition or overlapping, rules that need to be updated due to changing circumstances. It is by putting safeguards in place now that we can ensure that the simplification policy does not lead to wholesale deregulation.

Finally, we must not believe that simplifying the rules alone will solve our competitiveness problems. Despite potential savings for businesses estimated at €37 billion per year by the end of the mandate, this is still small compared to the €800 billion per year that the Draghi report recommends investing. On this issue, Europe cannot afford to take a ‘break’.