In a wide-ranging interview with China’s Bastille Post (via CCTV), Busch emphasizes four major innovation trends reshaping industry: circular economy, AI-native systems, quantum computing, and fusion. He observes AI agents penetrating all markets and predicts future managers will oversee both humans and AI—while also highlighting the importance of resource recycling and sustainability.

Link: Bastille Post – Siemens CEO shares insights on emerging technology innovation trends 

On February 26, 2025, the European Commission revisited the topic of sustainability, with the clear objective of simplifying previous regulations and reducing bureaucratic burdens.

In recent years, the EU has played a pioneering role in corporate sustainability regulation, introducing measures such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), aimed at ensuring greater transparency and accountability in business activities. However, the administrative burden of these regulations has drawn significant criticism, especially from small and medium-sized enterprises, which cite excessive costs and bureaucratic complexity.

The most recently introduced directive, EU Omnibus, encompasses a package of textual amendments and revisions to existing measures.

With this proposal, the European authorities aim to lay solid foundations for improving business competitiveness by responding to increasing pressure from the business sector, fostering economic growth and innovation, and attracting more capital toward sustainable investments. The challenge lies in balancing ambitious sustainability goals with the practical needs of market players.

Within the EU Omnibus directive, a series of amendments are proposed to simplify sustainability reporting obligations for European companies.

As for the CSRD, the main proposals include:

• Postponing the application from 2026 to 2028;
• Maintaining the concept of double materiality (financial and social) as a mandatory strategic exercise;
• Revising eligibility thresholds: the CSRD would apply only to companies with more than 1,000 employees and revenue exceeding €50 million or a balance sheet above €25 million. Smaller companies may adopt a voluntary standard (VSME);
• Limiting data collection obligations by removing the requirement to collect data from suppliers not subject to the CSRD;
• Abolishing the initially foreseen sector-specific standards;
• Revising the ESRS (European Sustainability Reporting Standards), likely reducing the volume of data to be collected.

Regarding the CSDDD, the key proposals include:

• Postponing the application from 2027 to 2028;
• Limiting due diligence obligations to direct business partners, excluding the entire value chain;
• Modifying the frequency of reporting requirements, proposing evaluations every five years instead of annual monitoring;
• Removing the requirement for fines to be proportional to company turnover. Member States may still impose penalties, with the European Commission offering guidance on appropriate amounts;
• Transition plans are recommended but will no longer be mandatory.

On Thursday, April 3, 2025, fulfilling previous promises, the European Parliament adopted the “Stock the Clock” directive, delaying the entry into force of the CSRD by two years and the CSDDD by one year. A public consultation was also launched, running from February 26 to March 26, 2025, concerning proposed amendments to the delegated acts of the Taxonomy Regulation. Key points include:

• A 70% reduction in required reporting templates and the introduction of a financial materiality threshold;
• Under certain conditions, non-financial companies may be exempted from reporting OPEX indicators;
• Non-financial companies with fewer than 1,000 employees will be exempt from calculating key performance indicators (KPIs).

Meanwhile, all other planned changes to the CSRD and CSDDD will be discussed at a later stage before implementation.

The adoption of the Omnibus package, representing a compromise between sustainability and competitiveness, will have significant international repercussions—particularly concerning the EU’s global competitiveness, trade relations, and political positioning.

Europe must now navigate a complex game of opposing pressures in its sustainability journey. On one hand, easing reporting requirements could improve the EU’s attractiveness to investors, narrowing the gap with countries like the United States and China, where regulations are less stringent. On the other hand, it risks compromising the EU’s leadership in sustainable regulation. Similarly, simplifying the CSDDD may reduce pressure on multinationals working with suppliers in developing countries, but it could also weaken the EU’s ability to enforce higher environmental and social standards.

The package may be perceived as a win for industrial lobbies, which have long advocated for reduced red tape. However, it risks alienating environmental groups and transparency advocates, who view these changes as a step backward from the goals of the European Green Deal.

Ultimately, the EU Omnibus package marks a turning point in the European sustainability strategy. The European Commission’s proposal to simplify existing rules and reduce bureaucratic burdens responds to a concrete need voiced by many economic players, particularly SMEs, often overwhelmed by complex and costly compliance requirements. This legislative intervention seeks to rebalance ambition with feasibility, ensuring that Europe remains fertile ground for growth, innovation, and investment attractiveness—without abandoning the core principles of the Green Deal.

The real challenge, however, will lie in the effective implementation of these changes and their ability to preserve—or even strengthen—the EU’s leadership in sustainability regulation. The risk is twofold: excessive deregulation could undermine the credibility and impact of European environmental and social policies, while overly rigid rules may hinder economic development and international competitiveness.

“At Isoclima, we believe that genuine sustainability is not about compliance alone, it’s about making impactful changes where it matters most. While we remain committed to meeting reporting requirements, our focus extends far beyond the mere act of disclosure. We aim to embed sustainability deeply into our operations, culture, and strategic decision-making,” says Meron Solomon Hussen, Corporate Sustainability Program Manager of Isoclima Group. “The proposed changes present an opportunity for companies to reflect on their true intentions. Are we merely chasing compliance, or are we actively working towards meaningful progress?” she continues, “At Isoclima our answer is clear: we are committed to building a sustainable future not because regulations demand it, but because it is the right thing to do. We also believe that this moment presents an opportunity to reshape the conversation around corporate sustainability. While compliance will always be a component of responsible business, we should not let it overshadow the broader mission of building a healthier planet for future generations. Even as we await final approval of the proposal, our commitment to sustainability remains firm. We will continue to report on our progress, but more importantly, we will continue to take concrete steps toward building a genuinely sustainable business. Now is the time to demonstrate that true sustainability leadership goes beyond compliance—it is about purpose, responsibility, and action.”

The task ahead is to build a balanced sustainability model, capable of addressing the needs of all stakeholders: institutions, businesses, investors, citizens, and the environment. A continuous, transparent, and constructive dialogue among these actors will be essential for Europe to truly lead the transition toward a more sustainable, equitable, and resilient future—leaving no one behind.

As a company specializing in high-performance transparent solutions for the defense and security sector, in the first quarter of 2025, we participated in Enforce Tac, one of the most renowned events in the global military industry.

We want to take this opportunity to highlight Unmanned Vehicles, particularly UAVs and UASs, a category of technologies that took center stage in many of the expert discussions at the event.

In the defense and security fields, terms like these are often heard, but the exact meaning may still be unclear to some. Unmanned Vehicles are vehicles that operate without a human crew. This category includes aerial (UAV), ground (UGV), surface (USV), and underwater (UUV) vehicles, all designed for missions where human presence would be risky or inefficient.

UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), better known as drones, are unmanned aircraft used for surveillance, monitoring, and intervention operations. The term UAS (Unmanned Aerial System) refers to the entire system, including the drone itself, the ground control station, software, and all supporting technologies needed for operation. These systems have become an essential part of modern defense and security strategies.

In the military domain, drones have evolved more rapidly than any other technology. The first defensive drone, Predator, dates back to 2001—a large American drone with a simple architecture inspired by the target drones used in training. Initially unarmed, its purpose was to serve as an extension of the human eye, collecting intelligence from a distance.

To understand how and why the Predator evolved into an armed system, consider the CIA’s operations in the Middle East. While attempting to track Taliban movements in Afghanistan, agents were often forced to watch ambushes unfold without being able to intervene. This led to the development of armed drones, a groundbreaking tool for counterterrorism efforts, enabling military action without a direct on-ground presence.

In this scenario, Turkey emerged as a pioneer, developing smaller, lighter, and more efficient drones. These models entered the market at a more affordable price than their American counterparts and were not limited to niche users. Thanks to Turkish innovation, UAVs became an indispensable part of military operations worldwide.

The latest development, called Drago, has been deployed in recent conflicts. To give a sense of scale, it’s estimated that over 100 drones silently patrol every kilometer of territory in conflict zones, always ready to strike.

Moving beyond UAVs, the military has begun integrating small ground robots. These robots are not only tasked with delivering supplies and medical aid on the battlefield but also with laying mines—evolving from simple logistical tools into active weapons of offense. Interestingly, ground vehicles often become targets for aerial drones, creating a sophisticated network of action and counteraction aimed at neutralizing enemy presence.

This same concept applies to marine drones, with some designed for attack, others for protecting offensive units, and yet others for recovering damaged systems. The widespread use of drones is largely due to their low cost and ease of use, features that explain their increasing adoption by terrorist and criminal groups.

The future becomes even more complex with advanced studies already underway in Turkey to develop fully autonomous fighter jets capable of performing maneuvers once thought impossible for human pilots. A clear indication of a future that is already taking shape.

In this rapidly evolving landscape—where technology meets operational needs—Unmanned Systems are not only a strategic opportunity but also a complex challenge. Their growing presence and constant improvements place new responsibilities on the defense sector, particularly in ensuring their controlled and deliberate use.

As renowned war correspondent Robert Fisk once said:

“War has become a technological issue. And the more sophisticated technology becomes, the easier it is to forget that human lives remain at the heart of it.”

This reflection is more relevant than ever, especially when it comes to unmanned systems, where automation sometimes risks overshadowing the weight of human decision-making.

Looking ahead, it’s essential to maintain an ongoing dialogue between industry, government, and research institutions. Innovation must never be an end in itself, but a means to create a safer, more responsible world.