Small European webshops halt cross-border shipping under new packaging rules

Small online retailers across the Netherlands are pulling back from cross-border sales within the European Union, citing the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) as the trigger. The regulation, which entered into force this year and phases in further requirements through 2029, obliges any company that places packaging on the market in a member state to register there, report the weight and type of packaging used, and in some cases appoint a local authorised representative. For a webshop shipping a few dozen parcels a year to Sweden or Slovenia, the fixed cost of compliance can exceed the revenue from those orders.

What the regulation requires

The PPWR replaces the 1994 Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive with a directly applicable regulation, meaning the same rules apply in all 27 member states without national transposition. It covers any business that produces, imports, fills or distributes packaging, including the cardboard boxes, padded envelopes and plastic wrap used by e-commerce sellers. Each member state must maintain a producer register, and companies must submit periodic declarations detailing the quantity and composition of packaging they place on that national market. The European Commission has published a frequently asked questions document, but retailers say critical operational details, such as which authority to contact in each country and how to handle composite packaging, remain unclear.

Fixed costs that do not scale

Dave Verzijl, who ships underwear to 23 of the 27 EU countries from his Dutch warehouse, put the economics bluntly. Registration fees, annual reporting obligations and the potential need for a local representative can cost hundreds of euros per country even before a single parcel is sent. For destinations where his shop receives only a handful of orders a year, the compliance bill dwarfs the margin. "A webshop must also keep track of registrations, deadlines, declarations, and evidence per country. That means many extra hours of administration every year, on top of the thousands of euros in paid services," he wrote on his site. Verzijl estimates the total annual burden for a multi-country seller at several thousand euros, a figure that is trivial for a platform shipping millions of parcels but decisive for a business turning over a few hundred thousand.

The single-market paradox

Yamie-lee Bijster, who runs a specialist pet food shop, stopped all non-Dutch shipping overnight. In a letter to RTL Z she wrote: "The borders within Europe are closing again." Her question cuts to the political core of the single market: who still has access? "The multinational with offices, lawyers, and staff throughout Europe? Or also the independent maker, specialist, family business, and small webshop?" Large retailers can amortise the fixed cost of 27 national registrations across millions of shipments, reducing the per-parcel overhead to cents. A micro-enterprise spreading the same fixed cost across a few hundred parcels faces a per-unit charge that makes the transaction uneconomic. The result is a de facto re-fragmentation of the market along the very lines the single market was designed to erase.

Real-world examples from the shop floor

Jeroen Maasdam, an antiques dealer, illustrated the problem with a concrete case. He receives an order from Sweden perhaps once or twice a year. To fulfil it legally under the PPWR he would need to register with the Swedish producer responsibility organisation, pay the registration fee, submit a declaration and possibly appoint a Swedish representative. The total could reach 200 euros. "I can't pass on those costs, because then I have to tell someone who orders something for about 50 euros that in addition to the 20 euro shipping costs, another 200 euros in registration costs are added," he told NRC. The customer walks away, the sale is lost, and the Swedish consumer loses access to a niche European seller. Multiply that across thousands of micro-retailers and dozens of low-volume country pairs, and the aggregate loss of variety becomes significant.

Uncertainty compounds the burden

Beyond the cost, retailers report genuine confusion about what is required. The Commission's FAQ document, updated periodically, still leaves gaps on issues such as whether a marketplace seller or the marketplace itself is the "producer" for registration purposes, how to treat packaging that is partially recycled content, and what evidence is sufficient for audit. Verzijl and Bijster both said they have spent hours reading guidance, consulting trade associations and emailing regulators without obtaining definitive answers. That uncertainty forces many to either over-comply, paying for services they may not need, or to withdraw from markets rather than risk penalties. The Dutch government has published a timeline of implementation steps through 2029, but the national competent authorities in several member states have yet to publish their fee structures or registration portals.

Calls for a proportionate regime

Both Verzijl and Bijster emphasise that they support the sustainability goals of the regulation. Their demand is for proportionality. Verzijl proposes a threshold-based system: "Who only sends a few hundred packages per year to a country should not have the same administration as a multinational with millions of shipments." Bijster points to the existing VAT One Stop Shop (OSS), which allows a business to declare and pay VAT for all EU cross-border sales through a single quarterly return in its home member state. A similar "packaging one-stop shop" would let a Dutch retailer file one declaration covering all 27 markets, with the home authority distributing fees to national schemes. The European Parliament's environment committee discussed a de minimis exemption during the legislative process, but the final text left the definition of "small quantities" to implementing acts that have not yet been adopted.

Political response and next steps

The petition with nearly 50,000 signatures has been submitted to the European Parliament's Petitions Committee, which can request a Commission response. MEPs from several groups have tabled written questions asking whether the Commission intends to adopt a de minimis implementing act before the next registration deadline. The Commission has acknowledged the administrative burden in its FAQ but has not committed to a specific simplification measure. Dutch trade association Thuiswinkel.org has formally requested the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management to advocate for a low-volume exemption at Council level. The next concrete milestone is the publication of the implementing act on de minimis thresholds, which the Commission is required to adopt under the regulation's empowering provisions. Until that act appears, small retailers face a binary choice: absorb the cost of 27 national compliance regimes, or withdraw from the markets where the arithmetic does not work.