Deferred requirement to report on sustainability for certain companies
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the proposal to postpone sustainability reporting for certain companies by two years to enable simpler regulations and reduce administrative costs 1. M argues that the postponement is a mandatory implementation of an EU decision that favors competitiveness by avoiding a comprehensive regulatory burden before rules have been simplified 1. MP, however, criticizes the postponement as a lowering of ambition that impairs transparency and competitiveness for Swedish companies that are far ahead 2. MP believes that the government lacks leadership and wants to water down the legislation, and demands that Sweden instead should push for the original, ambitious legislative packages in the EU 2.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Ludvig Ceimertz (M)
Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a proposal that means the obligation to report on sustainability according to the new EU rules is postponed by two years for certain companies. It is therefore about an adjustment of the timing for the application.
As stated in the proposition and in the Committee on Civil Affairs' report, the European Commission has presented an amending directive that explicitly requires Member States to postpone the reporting obligation for companies that would otherwise begin to be covered from the financial year starting on 1 January 2025. The purpose is to allow time to develop a simpler and more purposeful regulatory framework that makes it easier for companies to report. It is therefore a mandatory implementation of an EU decision. Sweden is doing what other Member States are now also doing.
Madam Speaker! The content of the change is fundamentally quite simple. For large companies in the so-called second wave, i.e., companies with over 250 employees or equivalent turnover and balance sheet levels, the first year of application is moved to the financial year beginning nearest to the end of 2026. For small and medium-sized listed companies as well as small and non-complex institutions, the application is postponed to the financial year beginning after the end of 2027.
It does not mean that sustainability reporting disappears, but it means that companies that have not yet started reporting will have more time to prepare and, above all, that the EU can complete the work of negotiating simplified rules, something that many in both the business community and authorities have requested to obtain a less bureaucratic process for achieving the purpose of sustainability reporting.
Madam Speaker! We have heard arguments that the postponement would worsen both Swedish competitiveness and transparency. It is certainly pleasing that the Green Party has begun to engage for Swedish competitiveness. We did not see much of that when we spoke about corporate espionage just now, but it is pleasing.
The fact is that it is precisely competitiveness that is in focus here. Europe has for a long time suffered from lower productivity growth than other large economies. An extensive regulatory burden has been identified as a contributing cause to why European productivity has been lower than in other large economies. This is the background to why the Commission is now working to reduce the administrative costs for companies, not least in the area of reporting.
Madam Speaker! To introduce a new and extensive reporting requirement before the work on simplification and, above all, before the Member States had agreed on the final design would be neither reasonable nor responsible.
It is also important to point out that the companies already covered by the rules, the so-called first wave, shall continue to sustainability report. The transparency does not therefore disappear, but is expanded at a slower pace for the groups that have not yet started reporting. The purpose is to await the discussions and negotiations that are currently ongoing regarding the design so that it becomes simple and effective and fulfills its purpose.
There is a reservation in the Committee on Civil Affairs that Sweden should push in the EU to withdraw the postponement. I believe this would be unfortunate, and the Committee on Civil Affairs therefore rejects the proposal, rightly so.
The Government will, if necessary, follow up on the consequences of the legislation in an appropriate manner, but it is not reasonable for the Riksdag to already give the Government instructions that run completely contrary to the directives that have already been adopted when negotiations continue at the EU level.
Sweden should, of course, be an active voice in the EU, but pushing to overturn decisions aimed at creating a more proportionate and competitive regulatory framework would not be compatible with our interests. In practice, it would mean that Swedish companies would be burdened with a more extensive regulatory framework faster than others, which also risks being revised in the near future. It would be harmful to Swedish competitiveness, without providing the positive environmental effects that are the purpose of the sustainability reporting.
Madam Speaker! In summary, it is a well-balanced proposal. It creates reasonable conditions for Swedish companies, and it gives the EU and the Member States time to complete the work already underway to achieve a simpler system and a smaller administrative burden. This benefits Swedish and European competitiveness, and it is good for the objectives that we are trying to achieve with sustainability reporting.
Amanda Palmstierna (MP)
Madam Speaker, members and observers! The previous EU majority decided on two legislative packages that could have had a Brussels effect on companies all over the world. The legislative packages were to ensure that companies not only gain competitiveness in the long term but also take responsibility for people, the environment, climate, and nature. I am speaking about the law on sustainability reporting and the law on due diligence. The two legislative packages are an important part of the EU's green deal and are based on international standards from the UN and OECD.
Behind the formal words sustainability reporting and due diligence lie people and their living environments. It is about companies ensuring that there is no child labor, forced labor, or substandard working conditions in their value chains. It is about companies ensuring that they do not cause environmental disasters such as poisoned water or dams that burst and flood entire communities. It is about reducing climate emissions.
It should be self-evident with legislation stating that companies shall manage risks to ensure that goods are not produced at the expense of people's lives or our planet's ecosystems, which are already under great pressure.
Consumers want transparency and insight, and investors demand consideration. But the current EU majority does not think this is obvious at all. A so-called stop-the-clock directive has been developed for sustainability reporting. This means that the current legislation, which had already been implemented in Sweden and other member states, is being postponed in order to negotiate in the EU and produce new legislation where the ambitions are lowered.
It is called rule simplification, but I think it is fairer to call it what it actually is: a proper lowering of ambition. Miljöpartiet in the European Parliament voted against it. The proposal is that the legislation should cover such large and few companies that not more than a tiny bit of the legislation remains.
The EPP group in the EU Parliament, with Christian Democratic and conservative parties, has negotiated drastic deteriorations in both legislative packages. The negotiations have, at times, taken place with the extreme right.
The deteriorations will hit the competitiveness of Swedish companies, precisely because Swedish companies are far ahead in the work of securing risks in the value chains. They will hit the transparency in sustainability work, and they will lower the transition pressure that aims at the climate and respect for human rights and the environment when it comes to companies in the EU.
When the due diligence package, which is a sister legislation to the sustainability reporting, was negotiated in the EU, a group of Swedish companies issued a public letter addressed to the Minister for Enterprise. They argued that Sweden, i.e., the Tidö Government, risked undermining the development that has occurred in the area to meet the UN and OECD standards for sustainable business. The Government lobbied hard for drastic deteriorations in the EU, and it took effect.
The companies asked the Minister for Enterprise to instead support strong legislation. These included, among others, Ericsson, Ica, Ikea, and Volvo Cars, so we are not talking about small businesses. But the Minister for Enterprise did not listen.
The first legislation on sustainability reporting, which was still ambitious and which the previous EU majority produced, the Tidö government was very late in introducing – so late that the EU Commission initiated a process against Sweden and threatened to take Sweden before the European Court of Justice. But in the end, the government introduced it.
The fact is that at the turn of the year, the EU Commission pursued 43 cases against Sweden regarding precisely the fact that Sweden is late in introducing legislation or does so in an inferior manner. These are significantly more cases than against our neighboring countries Denmark and Finland. When the new directive arrived, with a lowered ambition level for sustainability reporting, the Tidö government was, of course, lightning-fast on the ball.
How did it look during the previous parliamentary term? Then, the red-green government showed leadership in these issues and pushed forward in the EU for strong legislation for human rights and the environment and for sustainability reporting, with much contact with companies and different types of work environment organizations and environmental organizations.
The current government has done exactly the opposite. You show no leadership at all in the EU for climate, environment, or human rights. You also show no leadership for the competitiveness that follows from being progressive in the climate transition and when it comes to securing risks in the value chains.
Time and again we have heard from the Tidö government that it is in the EU that the transition shall take place and that Sweden shall not go ahead. The truth, however, is that the Tidö government wants to water down both here at home and in the EU. It becomes, so to speak, a race to the bottom. At the same time, yet another of our planetary boundaries has been exceeded, and human rights continue to be violated, for example when it comes to child labor.
We in Miljöpartiet believe that Sweden should show leadership and push forward in the EU so that these drastic deteriorations are not accepted. Instead, one should push forward for the original, ambitious legislative packages.
I move for approval of reservation 2.
In this speech, Linus Lakso (MP) agreed.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.