Simplification or deregulation?

The examples from sustainability, chemicals, health and digital policy show how broad the current simplification agenda is – and how different its impacts can be. Reducing bureaucracy is, in principle, sensible. Where duplicate reporting is eliminated, procedures are digitalised or responsibilities are clarified, this facilitates work in practice. Many processes become faster and more efficient as a result.

However, this objective must not obscure the fact that some of the European Commission’s proposals intervene in substantive protection standards. The debate is no longer limited to procedural issues. Can this still be described as simplification – or is it already a form of deregulation?

A look at the figures and the economic dimension also puts some expectations into perspective. The European Commission estimates that its proposed omnibus packages will reduce administrative burdens by almost 12 billion euros per year. This initially sounds like substantial savings but corresponds to only around 0.07 per cent of the EU’s gross domestic product. By comparison, occupational accidents and diseases alone generate economic costs amounting to around 3 per cent of GDP.

Against this background, the question arises whether the focus is primarily on competitiveness or whether a political reassessment of existing protection standards is also taking place – not least in light of explicit calls for a Social Omnibus, which the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion has so far resisted. In the ongoing and forthcoming negotiations, it will therefore be crucial to allow simplification where it makes procedures more efficient without weakening the social foundations of Europe.