08/09/2026
The Commission’s response to our demand
Back in June, The Good Lobby joined more than 60 other civil society organisations, trade unions and academics in an open letter to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the College of Commissioners. We warned that the planned overhaul of the EU’s Better Regulation guidelines would make it easier – as argued in Professor Alemanno’s submission to the Call for Evidence to skip impact assessments and public consultations.
We also warned that it would risk stigmatising Member States that want to set higher social and environmental standards than the EU minimum. The Commission has now responded. In a letter, Michael Wimmer, Director for Simplification, Implementation and Enforcement at the Secretariat-General, replies point by point on behalf of the College. Its detailed answer is not a reassuring one.
What the Commission says
Wimmer commits the Commission to carry out more impact assessments, not fewer, noting that proposals which previously would have been exempted – including the two simplification “omnibus” packages – are now being assessed. It argues the new “matrix of key impacts” will sharpen the quality of evidence gathered rather than narrow it, and that urgency-based shortcuts will remain the exception, “strictly limited and properly documented.” On consultation, the Commission maintains that its process is transparent and that “no single group can dominate policymaking,” with targeted formats like Reality Checks complementing rather than replacing public consultations. On gold-plating, it says it is not targeting social or environmental standards, only “unnecessary or disproportionate” national burdens.
Read the fine print, though, and the reassurance thins out fast
On impact assessments, the Commission strives to reassure that derogations will be “properly documented.” Yet the definition of “urgency” remains broad enough to let assessments be dropped whenever it suits, and documenting a shortcut after the fact does nothing to prevent it being taken in the first place. If the Commission is serious about doing more assessments, not fewer, it needs to show that in the rules, not just in a letter. The promised “matrix of key impacts” fares no better under scrutiny. The reply describes it in the same general terms as the original Communication, without saying what it would actually change in practice – which leaves plenty of room for standards to slide rather than rise. And the idea of extending assessment obligations to the European Parliament and Council, using a simplified cost-model, is treated by the Commission as a minor technical fix. It isn’t: a crude cost-benefit exercise applied to Parliament’s own amendments could quietly reshape how EU law gets made, well beyond anything Better Regulation was meant to do.
Then there’s consultation. The Commission maintains that targeted formats complement, rather than replace, broader public consultation. The record from the omnibus files says otherwise – that’s precisely where wide consultation was skipped in favour of narrower, business-facing formats. Citing a principle isn’t the same as applying it, and we’ll be watching closely to see whether the Commission’s own words here translate into practice.
Gold-plating gets a similarly thin response. The Commission repeats that its target is “unnecessary” national burdens, not social or environmental protections, but stops short of explaining how that line will actually be drawn. Meanwhile, its own consultation on the topic tells a clearer story: submissions are coming overwhelmingly from business, with little sign that other voices are being sought out, let alone heard.
What’s next
While the Commission’s reply confirms that our concerns were heard, it fails to address them. We’ll keep pressing, together with the coalition behind the original letter, for Better Regulation guidelines that mean better rules for everyone, not simply fewer rules for business.
Explore The Good Lobby Deregulation Monitor
Read the response from the EU Commission