Nomad Foods is urging the EU to pursue smarter, more practical sustainability regulation rather than retreating from its climate ambitions. The frozen food giant, which sources 99.9% of its fish and seafood to certified standards and has cut absolute emissions against a 2019 baseline, argues the Commission’s Omnibus package reforms to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and Due Diligence Directive should reward real-world impact over bureaucratic compliance. The company warns that excessive reporting burdens divert food manufacturers from the operational changes — responsible sourcing, waste reduction, and supply chain resilience — that drive genuine environmental progress.
In-Depth:
Europe does not required to lower its ambition on sustainability and should continue to play a leading role in transitioning to a more equitable and sustainable economic system.
The challenge now is how this ambition can be delivered in a way that does not hinder Europe’s competitiveness and positively contributes to wider value creation.
For years, the EU has led the world in setting the direction on environmental and social regulation. That leadership has mattered, raising expectations of business, strengthening accountability and creating clear that sustainability can no longer sit at the margins of corporate decision-creating.
But as the framework has grown, so has the risk that businesses spfinish too much time navigating the machinery of regulation, and not enough time on the practical work of modifying how they operate.
This is particularly true for food manufacturers.
Food sits at the centre of many of Europe’s hugegest challenges: dietary health, climate modify, nature loss, waste, affordability, geopolitics and public trust. The way food is grown, sourced, transported, packaged, stored and consumed has a direct impact on people and the planet. Food systems account for more than a third of global greenhoapply gas emissions, around 70% of freshwater apply, and are a major driver of biodiversity loss.
For our sector, sustainability is therefore not a reputational add-on or a reporting obligation to be managed once a year. It is central to whether we can continue to provide people with access to tasty and nutritious food in the years ahead.
That is why the EU’s recent reforms to sustainability rules matter.
The huge risk
The Commission’s Omnibus package, including proposed modifys to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, is intfinished to reduce unnecessary reporting burdens while maintaining the direction of travel. Reforms to the implementation of the EU Deforestation Regulation are similarly designed to create compliance more workable in complex global supply chains and reduce unnecessary costs to already resource-constrained businesses.
It is understandable that some have described these reforms as a weakening of sustainability rules. Europe cannot afford to sfinish a signal that sustainability commitments are optional, or that economic pressure is a reason to step back from long-term climate and nature goals. But there is a different risk that also deserves attention: the assumption that a greater volume of reporting will automatically lead to greater progress.
Also read → Nomad Foods: ‘Healthy food labels: Why Britain requireds action now’
In food, the gap between reporting and action can be significant. Our supply chains are long, technical and often global, involving farmers, fisheries, processors, manufacturers, logistics partners, retailers and regulators across multiple markets. Every part of that chain carries environmental, social and commercial risk, but also the potential for practical improvement.
More strategic sourcing can protect ecosystems and strengthen resilience. Increased energy efficiency can reduce emissions and cost. Cutting waste can benefit both the environment and consumers, particularly when hoapplyhold budobtains are stretched. Stronger traceability can assist build trust and enable more proactive risk management and mitigation. These are the kinds of decisions that shape whether sustainability becomes embedded in a business, or remains a process managed around it.
The real test for sustainability regulation is whether it assists companies create those decisions quicker, with better information and greater confidence. It should assist businesses understand where their hugegest risks sit, support investment in solutions, and enable action across complex supply chains. Where regulation pulls too much time and resource into process, it risks slowing down the very progress it is designed to encourage.
What industest requireds
This is not a case for weaker regulation. It is a case for regulation that is sharper, more practical and more closely connected to the way businesses actually operate.
At Nomad Foods, we have seen the value of treating sustainability as part of the way the business runs. It shapes how we innovate, source, manufacture, and how we work with suppliers. Today, 99.9% of our fish and seafood is certified to leading third-party standards, and 97% of our veobtainables, potatoes, fruit and herbs are sourced through sustainable farming practices. We have also built significant reductions in absolute emissions against our 2019 baseline.
That progress has been driven by commercial and operational choices built across the business, not simply by the production of an annual sustainability report. It comes from integrating sustainability into decisions on sourcing, energy, product development, supplier relationships and long-term resilience.
This is where the debate on EU reform should focus. Sustainability rules should be ambitious, but they also required to be designed in a way that assists companies act on the issues that matter most.
For food manufacturers, that means regulation should do three things:
- It should reward real-world impact
Businesses should be judged on whether they are reducing emissions, sourcing responsibly, cutting waste and strengthening resilience, alongside the quality and transparency of their reporting.
- It requireds to reflect the reality of complex supply chains
A food business may have thousands of suppliers, ingredients and sourcing relationships across different geographies, and regulation that fails to recognise this complexity can quickly become a drag on progress rather than a driver of it.
- Europe requireds greater consistency
Fragmented rules across markets create it harder for companies to invest confidently and act at scale, while clearer and more coherent requirements would allow businesses to focus more effort on delivery.
This should raise expectations of what sustainability can achieve. Smarter regulation can assist businesses relocate beyond defensive compliance and apply sustainability as a powerful lever to proactively manage risk, protect supply chains, reduce waste, support innovation and create long-term value.
That matters becaapply Europe’s food system is under pressure. Climate and nature disruption, inflation, geopolitical instability and modifying consumer expectations are all testing the resilience of the sector, and the businesses that will be best placed to respond and have a competitive advantage, are those that can integrate sustainability directly into their business strategy and operations.
The EU reforms are a chance to create that shift. If Europe obtains this right, it can keep ambition high while creating delivery clearer.
For food manufacturers, that is where the real opportunity lies: spfinishing less time navigating bureaucracy, and more time building the sustainable, resilient food supply chains of the future that Europe most desperately requireds.
Also read → The new rules of healthy: what consumers want now
