The joint meeting of the European Parliament committees ECON, ENVI, and LIBE on 4 December 2025 saw a sharp divergence of views primarily between proponents and critics concerning the thresholds defining Small and Mid-Cap companies (SMCs) and the extent of regulatory simplifications applied, notably under the Batteries Regulation and GDPR amendments.
MEPs like Mariateresa Vivaldini (ECR), Niels Flemming Hansen (EPP), Tomas Tobé (EPP), Isabel Benjumea (EPP), Ľudovít Ódor (Renew), and Irena Joveva (Renew) advocated for raising thresholds to include firms with up to 1500 employees and €450 million turnover as SMCs. Their rationale centered on improving EU competitiveness, enabling firms to scale, and streamlining regulatory burdens without weakening protections for smaller enterprises. Hansen further supported extending due diligence exemptions to SMCs with safeguards like a Commission review within two years.
On the opposing side, Thomas Bajada (S&D), Enikő Győri (Patriots for Europe), Per Clausen (Left), Markéta Gregorová (Greens), and Kristian Vigenin (S&D) raised concerns about the high thresholds diluting SME protections, weakening GDPR accountability by lifting record-keeping obligations for many firms, and undermining environmental scrutiny, especially in battery supply chains. They underscored risks that larger companies could crowd out SMEs in funding and warned of a lack of empirical data underpinning the proposed thresholds.
These interactions took place during the joint ECON-ENVI-LIBE committee meeting reviewing the Omnibus IV simplification package, which amends several frameworks including GDPR, the Prospectus Regulation, Batteries Regulation, and F-gases rules.
Regarding concrete policy proposals, proponents detailed numeric thresholds—1500 employees, €450m turnover, €387m balance sheet—aimed at harmonizing definitions across related legislation. The inclusion of a five-year review cycle for due diligence and consolidated reporting are specific institutional measures proposed by Hansen to balance simplification and environmental responsibility. Conversely, critics largely relied on cautionary assessments, requesting empirical justifications and impact analyses, rather than offering alternative numerical targets.
The policy orientations reflect a cleavage between expanding the scope of simplification measures with increased thresholds and institutional review mechanisms versus a cautious stance prioritizing stringent SME protections and environmental oversight. This split touches on broader tensions: increasing EU regulatory flexibility and integration for mid-sized firms versus safeguarding the integrity of SME status and accountability standards.
Key stakeholders influenced by these outcomes include EU producers in sectors like batteries and finance, who stand to benefit from reduced administrative burdens; SMEs concerned about losing preferential access to finance; national authorities tasked with enforcement and oversight; and EU consumers relying on robust environmental and data protection safeguards.
Looking ahead, the European Parliament will need to reconcile these positions by balancing the competitiveness gains for mid-sized firms against potential compromises in regulatory rigor. The amendment deadline on 8 December indicates that negotiations will focus on refining threshold levels and institutional safeguards to ensure proportionality and clarity without fragmenting internal market standards.
This debate thus illustrates the ongoing balancing act within EU policymaking between fostering business growth through simplification and maintaining strong consumer and environmental protections.