On Wednesday, Members of the European Parliament debated the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation’s impacts on small businesses selling across EU borders. We take a closer look at the conversations held and what they mean for EU legislation going forward.
Criticisms
Peter Liese of PPE called for the text’s “extreme bureaucratic excesses” to be addressed, while Volker Schnurrbusch of ESN described the Regulation as “nothing short of an imposition on small retailers, the self-employed, and craft businesses!”
“Anyone shipping just a few parcels to other EU states is expected to grapple with registrations, fees, reporting obligations, and authorized representatives in individual Member States,” Schnurrbusch continued. “That is not how you create a Single Market; that is how you erect new bureaucratic barriers.”
Antonín Staněk of PfE argued that the costs a small company pays to appoint a mandatory representative in every end market often outweighs the value of the product itself – an outcome he expected to jeopardize the functioning of the Single Market – and stood in opposition to “companies paying the price for regulatory uncertainty they did not cause.”
“The well-intentioned aim of minimizing packaging material has turned into a bureaucratic nightmare,” continued Elisabeth Dieringer, also representing PfE. “Small and medium-sized enterprises are stopping cross-border shipments in droves due to legal uncertainty.
“It is no wonder! In the Commission’s impact assessment, SMEs are not listed as a distinct affected group but are simply classified as “manufacturers”—making no distinction between a major corporation and a one-person startup.”
Maria Grapini of S&D pointed the ambiguous definition of a ‘producer’ when a pack is manufactured, marketed and used by three separate enterprises – an outcome she describes as “a shifting of responsibility.”
“I have requested a definitive answer because, naturally, the heaviest burden imposed by this regulation falls on SMEs,” she stated. “If the rules are unclear, who will be held accountable during an inspection?”
After calling out contradictions between the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, Single-Use Plastics Directive and Critical Raw Materials Act, ECR’s Pietro Fiocchi recounted his visit to a lithium recycling plant: “It is easier for them to export to China and then import the material back from China than it is to export from Italy to France. And that is madness.”
Fellow ECR representative Paolo Inselvini told MEPs: “The regulation has been in force for a month, yet we are asking businesses to invest today while the rules are to be sorted out tomorrow. This is absurd, and unfortunately, the price is being paid by those who work, produce, and create jobs.”
“European artisans are not industrial polluters who should be forced to pay 27 different intermediaries just to sell a handmade product,” added ECR’s Ivaylo Valchev. “Environmental fees should reflect the actual volume of waste, not compel businesses to bankroll the bureaucracy.”
Overregulation
Representing the PfE Group, Anne-Sophie Frigout called for the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation to be repealed completely – describing it as “yet another bureaucratic monstrosity” containing “punitive environmental measures.”
“In the name of the environment, you are forcing all our SMEs and micro-enterprises to register in every EU country and appoint an authorized representative,” she said. “That means 27 forms, with costs ranging from €600 to €2,000 per year for each one. For a French wine merchant, publisher, or artisan, this simply spells the end of exporting.”
Frigout also asserted that consumers will ultimately foot the bill through higher product prices, and that policymakers themselves have told Member States not to enforce rules or penalize non-compliant businesses: “You drafted it, you voted for it, and now you yourselves are asking for it not to be applied.”
Arno Bausemer of the ESN Group criticized the new laws as “yet another sorry example of over-regulation —and, by extension, unfair rules.”
He condemned the “additional bureaucratic burden” of forcing SMEs to register separately in each country as “nonsensical and costly” and “the final nail in the coffin for many small and medium-sized enterprises.”
“We must absolutely prevent a further rise in business failures to protect our economy and our citizens,” he said. “That is why this packaging regulation belongs straight in the political trash can.”
Virginie Joron of PfE took a similar view: “In Brussels, we will soon have to decide whether our fellow European citizens can continue to carry and buy a multipack of water, or whether they will henceforth have to carry their bottles one by one.
“It would be funny if it were not so revealing of a European Union that has lost the plot. We saw it with water bottle caps, so, Commissioner, I ask just one thing of you: do not revise this proposal—simply throw it in the yellow recycling bin.”
“I observe that the world is developing and devising new technologies, while Europe is waging war on collation shrink wrap, nets, bags, sachets, and even hotel shampoo,” commented Jacek Ozdoba of ECR. “The answer is simple: let’s just throw this in the trash.”
Pushback
Several MEPs objected to abandoning the Regulation. According to Alessandra Moretti of S&D, “to deviate now would mean betraying our commitments and perpetuating an unsustainable model, paving the way for an environmental—as well as economic and social—disaster.”
“The implementation of the Regulation on packaging and packaging waste for SMEs has only just begun, yet there are already those who wish to exploit any issues or difficulties in its application to reopen the file and lower its targets,” continued S&D’s César Luena. “Let us not make that mistake.”
“Adjustments—yes; abolition—no,” declared Jutta Paulus, representing the Greens/EFA Group. “Giving large online companies a free pass leaves our municipalities and citizens to foot the bill.”
Similarly, Hanna Gedin stated on behalf of The Left Group that the Regulation should be treated as “a united response to the [environmentally destructive e-commerce] giants’ unchecked packaging waste and emissions.”
“Let us help the smallest players—ensuring fairer competition and allowing more time for adaptation,” she stated. “These are the creative micro-enterprises that actually offer more sustainable alternatives to major corporations.”
Also representing The Left Group, João Oliveira acknowledged the difficulties small businesses are facing under authorized representative requirements, but implored that Parliament “address this specific issue in a targeted way, rather than reopening or dismantling the Regulation; I do not believe that suspending the obligation for years offers a solution—it merely postpones the problem.”
He also argued that the EU Single Market is “tailor-made for large companies, large economic groups, and multinationals” – and thus considered it hypocritical for certain political players to oppose the Regulation in the name of SMEs.
Next steps
Delara Burkhardt from the S&D Group encouraged MEPs to abolish the requirement for authorized representatives altogether – making the case for a digital one-stop shop rather than separate bureaucracies.
PfE’s Antonín Staněk went on to call for the reopening of suspended negotiations: “Even Member States have pointed out the lack of legal certainty and the inconsistent interpretation of rules. Yet, companies are already required to comply with the packaging regulation today.
“I support an exemption for companies with low packaging volumes and a “one-stop shop” system—one point of contact, one system, rather than twenty-seven different administrative regimes.”
ESN’s Volker Schnurrbusch continued: “We need a moratorium on cross-border obligations, an EU-wide de minimis threshold for micro-enterprises, and—finally—a single point of contact instead of a patchwork of national regulations. Our SMEs need legal certainty and less bureaucracy from Brussels.”
ECR’s Sander Smit also backed “a single registration for the entire Union and workable exemptions for SMEs. Otherwise, we will price our entrepreneurs out of the single market—and surely that cannot be the intention.”
Greens/EFA Group’s Jutta Paulus took a similar stance: “We need sensible thresholds to relieve the burden on micro-enterprises, and a digital online portal instead of a mountain of paperwork in 21 official languages.”
Aside from the point of registration, The Left Group’s João Oliveira suggested that policymakers “make use of the upcoming Circular Economy Act to present a European solution that simplifies and harmonises extended producer responsibility systems and facilitates cross-border trade, particularly for smaller businesses.”
Among other measures, he urged policymakers to create exceptions to help SMEs adapt to the Regulation, establish derogations for Member States to devise realistic approaches based on their national realities, and avoid passing costs down to consumers.
Meanwhile, Renew’s Sigrid Friis encouraged MEPs to resume negotiations for the Environmental Omnibus proposal: “This is a matter of preserving the planet’s resources, reducing packaging and the footprint of packaging waste, and balancing this important and correct priority with the right sense of proportion. We can make the rules clearer and smarter than they currently are; that is why we need to return to the negotiating table.”
Ultimately, S&D’s Alessandra Moretti told attendees, “the green transition cannot exist merely on paper; it must take place in factories, with workers, and among the people.
“In particular, small and medium-sized enterprises—the engine of our economy, yet with fewer resources—must receive support and feel that Europe stands with them.
“Alongside fixed targets and established timelines, we also call for greater administrative simplification, conditional financial incentives, and clear guidelines.”
Commissioner’s view
Jessika Roswall, the European Commissioner for Environment, Water Resilience and a Competitive Circular Economy, accepted the widespread concerns and described the process of developing the Regulation as a “careful negotiation” between “the need to transform our packaging systems on the one hand, and the capacity of businesses to adapt on the other.”
Nevertheless, she conceded that “we cannot ask small companies selling small quantities across several Member States to set up authorized representatives in each national market.”
Roswall emphasized that SMEs are already permitted to source documentation from their packaging suppliers and are temporarily exempt from non-compliance fines, but accepted that “flexibilities on paper [are] not enough.”
She continued: “We have established an expert group to give stakeholders a direct voice on implementation. We will improve practical guidance to help SMEs navigate the new rules, and we are intensifying the discussions with Member States. I also encourage national authorities to make full use of the flexibilities that are available.
“We should also remember that several of the major requirements will only apply from 2030. Companies will have time to redesign packaging, adapt product lines, establish re-use systems, and invest in new recycled technologies.
“And we don’t stop there: as part of the upcoming Circular Economy Act, we will ensure that the extended producer responsibility will work better across Europe. Here we will propose clear simplification, harmonisation and digitalisation actions to support our SMEs and our Single Market.”
If you liked this story, you might also enjoy:
The ultimate guide to global packaging sustainability regulation in 2026
PPWR timeline: the key dates to know
No comments yet