EU Parliament committee backs EPR reprieve for SME packaging

Yesterday, the European Parliament’s (EP) Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety voted in favor of a proposal to temporarily suspend authorized representative requirements for EU-based micro, small, and medium enterprises (SMEs) under packaging EPR rules. 

According to the EP, the proposal comes from the European Commission’s (EC) Environmental Omnibus package and aims to reduce administrative burdens. If adopted, the requirement for SMEs to appoint authorized representatives to export packaging and single-use plastics within the EU will be dropped until 2035. 

Packaging Insights speaks to the EU-wide industry organizations EuroCommerce and European National Registers for Packaging (EUNR), and Thuiswinkel.org, representing the Dutch e-commerce sector, to better understand what the move means for compliance with the EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) for SMEs based in the EU and beyond. 

EuroCommerce explains that a final plenary vote is expected before negotiations with the Council can begin and welcomes the Council’s willingness to continue working on the Environment Omnibus proposal. The organization adds that sector urged the co-legislators to reach an agreement swiftly and give companies certainty over authorized representative requirements. 

“Authorized representative requirements are one of many practical hurdles facing businesses when implementing the PPWR,” Daniela Haiduc, director of Communication at EuroCommerce, tells us. “Businesses still face uncertainty over how several provisions will be interpreted and applied, while forthcoming secondary legislation could add reporting, calculation, and documentation requirements.” 

“They also require clarification on how the PPWR will be applied and a 12-month grace period to address outstanding implementation problems. The association is also looking for proportionate secondary legislation under the PPWR.” 

Marlene ten Ham, CEO of Thuiswinkel.org, asserts: “During the ongoing legislative discussions, EU member states should take a pragmatic and proportionate enforcement approach. Companies need legal certainty, but they also need time to adapt to a provision whose future is currently under review.” 

“We welcome the EC’s recognition that the requirement may impose unnecessary burdens, particularly on smaller businesses. Until a final political decision is reached, enforcement authorities should focus on guidance and support rather than sanctions, especially where companies are making good-faith efforts to comply.” 

At the same time, Gunda Rachut, president at EUNR, argues that the current debate surrounding authorized representative requirements is “very one-sided. She highlights that the move also provides regulatory relief for sellers based outside of the EU. 

Ongoing hurdles for SMEs 

 Discussing how the current EU authorized-representative requirements under the PPWR are impacting online SMEs and webshops selling small volumes across multiple EU countries, Ten Ham argues that the requirement is disproportionate. 

“A business selling only limited volumes into several EU member states may need to appoint and manage multiple authorized representatives, each with separate contracts, reporting obligations, and costs,” she details. “This creates significant administrative complexity that is difficult to justify when sales volumes are low.” 

“From a Single Market perspective, there is a real risk that smaller businesses will simply stop selling cross-border because the compliance burden outweighs the commercial opportunity. That outcome would be at odds with the EU’s objective of facilitating cross-border trade.” 

Ten Ham describes what a proportionate system could look like to ensure producers are meeting environmental responsibilities while “significantly” reducing administrative duplication. 

Thuiswinkel.org favors solutions including exemptions for micro and small businesses selling limited volumes cross-border and clearer minimum thresholds below which simplified obligations apply. 

She also calls for mutual recognition or a single EU-wide authorized representative instead of separate representatives in every EU member state and a digital EU one-stop shop for registration, reporting, and EPR compliance across the Single Market. 

“The objective should be to ensure environmental compliance without creating barriers to cross-border e-commerce. Businesses should be able to spend their resources on complying with sustainability obligations, rather than navigating 27 different administrative systems.” 

Relief for third-country retailers 

  However, EUNR’s Rachut argues that the conversation about authorized representative requirements under the EU’s PPWR is one-sided, focusing on EU-based sellers and failing to take the “actual impact” into account. 

 “The largest number of online sellers are based in Asia,” she notes. “The current debate effectively boils down to the fact that online retailers in third countries no longer have to fulfill any obligations, as enforcement is not possible in those countries” 

 “On the one hand, we lament that town centers are no longer attractive, whilst on the other hand, we are discussing solutions that would provide massive relief for online retailers in third countries.” 

 Rachut also points to the volume of packaging waste disposed of by national-level producer responsibility organizations (PROs) across member states. “This is another aspect that is always overlooked. We are talking about a large volume of packaging waste that is disposed of by the PROs in the individual countries.”

“Consumers dispose of it, and someone has to pay for it. If it is not the polluter, it must be someone else. Who exactly are we talking about here? The larger producers based in Europe? This needs to be discussed honestly.” 

  Rachut emphasizes the importance of producer responsibility and putting the “polluter pays” principle into practice. “We, the registers, are trying to curb the free-riders so that the PROs can survive.” 

  “This represents a significant distortion of competition, as those who comply with the law end up subsidizing those who do not.”