EU weighs PPWR compliance relief as cross-border small businesses face costs

The EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) has raised concerns among micro and small businesses selling across borders within the bloc with its authorized-representative requirements, part of its EPR rules, industry groups warn. 

 While EU lawmakers consider temporary relief for eligible businesses, industry stakeholders remain divided over how exemptions should work and how to ensure producers continue to meet their packaging waste obligations. 

The debate follows Packaging Insights’ recent coverage of the European Parliament committee’s backing for a proposed suspension of authorized representative requirements for eligible businesses under packaging EPR rules. 

Since then, on October 8, Austria, supported by Czechia and Estonia, submitted a document to the Council ahead of its October 12 Environment Council meeting, calling for a proportionate EPR framework for small producers and the single market under the PPWR. 

“While the suspension is still being negotiated, no obligation to appoint an authorized representative should apply,” Tim Arlt, CEO of Händlerbund, one of Europe’s largest e-commerce organizations, tells Packaging Insights. “However, this requires a legally binding rule, not just a recommendation from the European Commission (EC).” 

“Retailers are currently facing considerable legal uncertainty, because a call for a ‘pragmatic approach’ does not protect them from penalties if enforcement does occur.” 

Cost of cross-border sales 

Under the PPWR’s EPR rules, producers selling in other EU member states face requirements to appoint authorized representatives in those markets. An EU Parliament committee recently backed an EC proposal for a temporary relief for small businesses. 

“We do not consider the current authorized representative requirements workable, particularly for small retailers,” Arlt continues. “For them, the effort and cost are out of all proportion to the small volumes they sell into other EU countries.” 

“We are already seeing the consequences: many retailers are stopping cross-border shipping altogether, and in the worst cases, some are even considering closing their businesses entirely. As a result, the rule restricts exactly the kind of cross-border trade the EU single market is meant to promote.” 

The cost of appointing authorized representatives can be difficult to absorb for businesses shipping only small volumes across EU borders, also according to the France-based consultant Barry Epstein, who helps manage the logistics and finances of his wife’s online home décor shop. 

He says their authorized representative fees range from €199 to €599 (US$223–US$671) per country, before VAT and potential additional charges for documentation. For businesses making only a handful of sales into individual EU markets these costs can undermine profitability, he argues. 

“If we’re only selling 3–5 parcels a year into any EU country, there is no way to amortize the costs and remain profitable.” 

He emphasizes that he does not object to contributing to packaging waste management itself, but questions the affordability of the additional compliance costs for small sellers. 

Calls for a proportionate system 

The EXtended Producer Responsibility Alliance (EXPRA) agrees that low-volume cross-border sellers can face disproportionate requirements. 

However, the organization representing 38 national packaging recycling and recovery organizations around the world argues that any derogation should be based on packaging quantities placed on the market rather than company size alone. 

“It is important, however, to distinguish the authorized representative requirement from the underlying EPR obligations,” an EXPRA spokesperson tells us. “A derogation from appointing an authorized representative should not exempt producers from registering, reporting packaging volumes, or paying the applicable EPR fees.” 

“Small quantities placed on the market by a large number of producers can still collectively represent a significant volume of packaging.” 

In September 2026, Germany proposed that businesses placing less than 10 metric tons of packaging on the market per year should not have to appoint an authorized representative. 

“A proportionate system could require an authorized representative only above a certain sales volume,” explains Händlerbund’s Arlt. “The German proposal offers a good alternative here.” 

“In addition, registration in the new system would be suspended until mid-2028, when a central European registration system for producers is expected to be up and running. This would significantly ease the burden on retailers and support fair cross-border trade across the EU.” 

Obligations remain 

EXPRA stresses that exemption from appointing an authorized representative should not mean exemption from producer registration, packaging-volume reporting, or EPR fee payments. 

“A proportionate system would provide a clearly defined derogation from the authorized-representative requirement for EU-established producers placing only very small quantities of packaging on the market of another EU member state.” 

“The threshold should be designed to target genuinely low-volume cross-border activity and should not remove the producer’s obligations to register, report its packaging volumes, and finance the corresponding EPR costs.” 

The organization asserts that derogation should also distinguish between producers established within and outside the EU. 

“For third-country producers, an authorized representative remains important to ensure effective enforcement, prevent free-riding, and maintain a level playing field for EU producers. They should therefore continue to comply with the authorized representative requirement and the related EPR registration, reporting, and financial obligations.” 

The EXPRA spokesperson notes that the EU’s EPR obligations for SMEs selling online are not an entirely new concept introduced by the PPWR. In fact, these have been in place for more than two decades, according to the spokesperson. 

“Many producer responsibility organizations already offer practical simplifications for smaller producers, including simplified declarations, thresholds, flat-rate fees, and reduced reporting frequencies. These examples demonstrate that administrative burden can be reduced while maintaining producer responsibility.” 

Discussing what should happen while the proposed changes to the authorized representative rule are still being negotiated, the EXPRA spokesperson says: “Enforcement authorities should take a pragmatic and proportionate approach, especially for low-volume operators, while ensuring that producers continue to comply with their basic EPR obligations.” 

“In practical terms, the ongoing legislative discussion should not be interpreted as a suspension of the underlying EPR obligations. Registration, reporting of packaging placed on the market, and payment of the relevant EPR contributions remain essential to the functioning and financing of national collection and recycling systems.” 

“Any administrative flexibility during this period should therefore remain targeted at the authorized representative requirement and should not result in producers disappearing from the EPR system.”