PPWR: MEPs back pause of representative duty

On 5 October 2026 the European Parliament’s Environment Committee voted to suspend, for a limited time, the duty to appoint an authorised representative for extended producer responsibility. The suspension would apply only to micro and small enterprises established in the EU. The vote was 74 in favour with none against. It is not yet law: the plenary has to confirm the position, and Parliament then has to reach agreement with the Council. This piece sets out what the committee adopted, who would be covered and what remains unchanged in the meantime.

Who

European Parliament Environment Committee (ENVI)

When

5 October 2026

Result

74 in favour, 0 against, 4 abstentions (batteries and packaging)

Beneficiaries

Micro and small enterprises established in the EU

Threshold

Fewer than 50 staff and under €10 million turnover or balance sheet total

Provision concerned

Art. 45(3) PPWR (Regulation (EU) 2025/40)

Next step

Plenary in the session of 19 to 22 October 2026

Law as it stands

The duty has applied unchanged since 12 August 2026

What the committee adopted

The starting point is a European Commission proposal from the Environmental Omnibus of 10 December 2025 (COM(2025) 982). The Commission wanted to suspend, until 1 January 2035, the duty to appoint an authorised representative for extended producer responsibility in each member state for all producers established in the EU. The Environment Committee keeps the suspension but limits it to micro and small enterprises. According to Parliament’s statement, that means companies with fewer than 50 employees and an annual turnover or annual balance sheet total of under €10 million.

Two texts were put to the vote. The first covers batteries and packaging, and therefore the PPWR; it received 74 votes in favour with 4 abstentions. The second covers textiles, footwear, electrical equipment and single-use plastic products and was adopted with 72 votes in favour and 5 abstentions. There were no votes against in either case. The rapporteur is the Dutch MEP Ingeborg ter Laak (EPP).

• EU-based companies only: sellers from third countries would still have to appoint an authorised representative.
• Time limit: the suspension would end automatically once comprehensive EU circular economy rules enter into force. The draft report names 1 January 2035 as the latest date.
• Less duplicate reporting: MEPs call for better pooling of information between member states, interoperable digital systems and common reporting requirements.
• Medium-sized and large companies are not covered. Under the committee’s position the duty would continue to apply to them.

We cannot ask them to wait years for a horizontal solution while they continue to face unnecessary administrative burdens today.

How the vote came about

The duty itself is in Art. 45(3) PPWR and has applied since 12 August 2026: anyone supplying packaging directly to end users in another member state must appoint an authorised representative there. When the rules started to apply, the Commission recommended that authorities issue warnings rather than sanctions for this duty at first. In September the German government floated a threshold of ten tonnes of packaging per year. That background is covered in two earlier pieces: “PPWR: relief for small retailers proposed” and “PPWR: how to read Brussels’ climbdown”.

Parliament and Council start from different criteria

Parliament ties the relief to company size. In the Council the discussion is about packaging volume instead. According to a paper by the Council secretariat dated 28 September 2026, delegations’ suggestions range from 600 kilograms to ten tonnes of packaging per producer and year; a market share was also mentioned as a yardstick. Some delegations still want to leave the matter to the Circular Economy Act. At the end of September member states signalled that they are willing to examine a targeted solution for small packaging producers. The Council does not yet have a negotiating mandate.

Austria, Czechia and Estonia go further in a joint paper for the Environment Council on 12 October. They propose a tiered model: a genuine de minimis threshold below which EU producers would neither register nor pay fees, and above it a simplified regime without an authorised representative and with a flat-rate contribution. They add a central European entry point for registration and more responsibility for online platforms. As an immediate measure the three states call for suspending the authorised representative duty for EU producers placing small quantities on the market.

In practice the difference is considerable. A shop with twelve employees that sends many parcels abroad would be relieved under Parliament’s criterion, but possibly not under a low volume threshold. Conversely, a manufacturer with 120 employees that sends only a few consignments to Denmark would be exempt only under a volume threshold. Which criterion applies in the end will be decided in the negotiations between Parliament and Council.

What the suspension would not change

Only the appointment of the authorised representative would be suspended. Producer responsibility in the destination country would remain. A company that no longer has to appoint a representative would still have to register there itself, report its volumes and pay fees. The requirements for the packaging itself are not affected by the proposal.

It is unclear how the suspension would relate to national rules. Since July 2026 France has required an authorised representative under its own law, and in more cases than the PPWR does. The details are in our piece “Authorised representative for packaging: what France requires”. Whether such national requirements would remain in place alongside a European suspension has not yet been settled.

How associations and registers are reacting

The European retail association EuroCommerce calls it a first step in the right direction. It wants the legislators to agree quickly, a twelve-month grace period for outstanding implementation issues, and proportionate secondary legislation under the PPWR. The Austrian Federal Economic Chamber is calling for flat-rate solutions and for the deadlines to be paused until reporting duties are harmonised across the EU. The German Confederation of Skilled Crafts (ZDH) wants appointing an authorised representative in other EU countries to remain voluntary in the long term, and asks for effective de minimis thresholds.

The authorised representative duty amounts to a market entry barrier.

Criticism comes from the packaging registers. Gunda Rachut, president of EUNR, the European association of packaging registers, considers the debate one-sided. She points to the polluter-pays principle: if companies avoid contributing, the remaining producers end up paying for their waste. The relief, she argues, would also benefit online sellers from third countries, where the duties can hardly be enforced. The committee has taken up part of that objection by excluding companies outside the EU from the suspension.

What companies should do now

• Do not terminate existing contracts. A committee vote does not change the law. Anyone who drops their authorised representative now is in breach of the rules in force.
• Check your company size. Headcount, turnover and balance sheet total decide under Parliament’s criterion; for groups, the linked companies may count as well.
• Work out your packaging volume per destination country. If the Council prevails with a volume threshold, that figure is what matters. You need it for volume reporting anyway.
• Keep up registration and reporting in the destination country. These duties would remain even with a suspension.
• Document your decision. If you deliberately go without an authorised representative for now, record your reasoning and the date in writing. The Commission’s recommendation binds neither competitors nor consumer and trade associations that issue warning letters.
• Note the session of 19 to 22 October. After the plenary vote, Parliament’s negotiating position will be fixed.