The European Commission has acknowledged that its own packaging regulation, intended to clean up Europe's waste stream, could end up pricing the continent's smallest businesses out of selling across borders. Patrick Child, deputy director-general of the Commission's environment department, told stakeholders in Estonia that extended producer responsibility requirements threaten to impose disproportionate costs and red tape on microenterprises trading in other member states.
The single market tension at the heart of the rules
The EU Packaging Regulation has two stated ambitions that sit in awkward relation to each other. One is to cut the volume of packaging waste, force reuse, and push recycling rates upward. The other is to harmonise requirements across the bloc so that a company selling goods in one member state is not blocked by 27 different national rulebooks. The second aim is supposed to serve the internal market. In practice, the compliance costs of meeting environmental targets may hit the smallest traders hardest, particularly those using online platforms to reach customers in other countries.
Child's comments in Estonia amounted to a frank admission of that problem. Extended producer responsibility schemes require producers to finance the collection and recycling of the packaging they place on a market. For a large manufacturer, paying into a scheme in another member state is an administrative line item. For a microenterprise with a handful of cross-border sales, the cost and complexity of appointing a representative in each destination country could exceed the revenue from those sales.
What Brussels proposed and where it stands
A year ago, the Commission put forward a specific fix: suspending the obligation for small companies to appoint and pay for an extended producer responsibility representative in another member state. Child confirmed that the costs involved may simply be too high for microenterprises. Two approaches are on the table, he said. One is mutual recognition, whereby a company registered in one member state would be deemed compliant in another without duplicating paperwork. The other is a partial exemption that would relieve the smallest firms of some requirements altogether.
The proposal remains under discussion among member states. No date for a decision has been set, and the Commission has not published a revised text. The delay matters because the regulation's provisions are already starting to bite.
The timetable already in motion
In August 2026, provisions on hazardous substances in food-contact packaging materials entered into force. These are the first operational parts of the regulation. The bulk of the requirements, including reuse targets, recycled content mandates, and restrictions on single-use plastics, are due to take effect from 2030.
The Commission is still drafting implementing acts to clarify how several of these provisions will work in practice. Among the outstanding details: exactly how member states should apply restrictions on certain types of single-use plastic packaging for fruit and vegetables weighing up to 1.5 kilograms.
The fruit and vegetable exception problem
From January 2030, single-use plastic packaging will be restricted for fresh unprocessed fruit and vegetables, and for pre-packaged fresh produce under 1.5 kilograms. The regulation allows member states to grant exceptions where packaging is needed to prevent moisture loss, wilting, microbiological risks, physical damage, or oxidation. But the procedure for requesting and granting those exceptions has not yet been clarified.
That gap is significant. Southern European producers, who ship perishable goods across the continent, have argued that plastic wrapping is often the only practical way to stop a shipment of, say, Spanish tomatoes or Greek peaches from arriving spoiled. Northern and central European governments, under pressure from voters concerned about plastic waste, have pushed for stricter limits. The exception mechanism is supposed to bridge that divide. Without clear rules on how it operates, producers and national authorities are left guessing.
Why the smallest exporters are exposed
Microenterprises, defined in EU law as businesses with fewer than 10 employees and annual turnover or balance sheet totals below 2 million euros, make up the vast majority of all European companies. Many sell across borders through online marketplaces. For them, the cost of registering with an extended producer responsibility scheme in each destination country is not a marginal expense. It can require local legal advice, local fee payments, and local reporting, all for what may amount to a few hundred sales.
The Commission's original suspension proposal recognised this. Child's remarks in Estonia went further, framing the issue as one the institution needs to address collectively rather than leaving to national authorities. "This is a problem that we need to solve together," he said.
The circular economy's administrative edge
Child's visit to Estonia also covered the Nature Restoration Regulation, a separate piece of EU legislation whose implementation has drawn concern from several member states about land-use restrictions and enforcement costs. The pairing was not accidental. Both the packaging regulation and the nature restoration law reflect a broader Commission push toward a circular economy, one in which resources are reused, waste is minimised, and environmental costs are borne by producers rather than public budgets.
That principle is straightforward. Translating it into rules that work for a Lithuanian artisan selling jam in Germany, or a Portuguese olive oil producer shipping to Finland, is harder. The packaging regulation's phased introduction is meant to give businesses time to adapt. But the implementing acts that will determine how the rules actually function are still being written, and the most contentious questions, from EPR exemptions to produce packaging exceptions, remain unresolved.
People mentioned
-
Patrick Child
Organisations
European Commission · Directorate-General for Environment
