On 5 October 2026, the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety (ENVI) voted on a Commission proposal that would ease one of the most disliked compliance duties in the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation: the requirement for a producer to appoint a local authorised representative for extended producer responsibility (EPR) in every member state where it sells packaging but has no establishment. The committee did not reject the idea. It narrowed it considerably, and attached conditions the Commission had not proposed.
For packaging and compliance teams, the vote is a signal of direction, not a change in the law. Nothing has been adopted. The obligation in Article 45(3) of Regulation (EU) 2025/40 has applied without a grace period since the PPWR’s general application date, the general date of application of the PPWR, with no transitional grace period for the representative obligation, on 12 August 2026. Anyone who needed a representative that day still needs one today.
What the Commission proposed, and what changed
The Commission’s proposal, COM(2025) 982 of 10 December 2025, grew out of its single market strategy work. In the May 2025 Communication on a strategy for the single market, the Commission highlighted the complexity of EPR rules as a major barrier in the internal market, in particular as regards the possibility or obligation for a producer to have an authorised representative for EPR in each Member State where the producer makes its products available. The fix on offer was broad: the proposal would provide additional flexibility by allowing producers established in the Union and selling products in another Member State to choose whether they appoint an authorised representative for EPR, with the suspension running until 1 January 2035.
ENVI did not accept that scope. Committee members voted to confine the relief to smaller EU-based companies and to keep the full obligation in place for everyone else, including producers based outside the EU. Press accounts of the committee’s own size threshold differ, and that gap is worth noting rather than papering over. EUWID Recycling and Waste Management reported that committee members voted Monday night to limit the exemption to micro and small enterprises, which are defined under EU law as companies with fewer than 50 employees and annual turnover under €10m or an annual balance sheet total of no more than €10m. Agence Europe’s account of the same vote describes a wider group, reporting that MEPs want the suspension limited to companies employing fewer than 250 people with an annual turnover of less than €50 million or an annual balance sheet total of less than €43 million, which is the full EU definition of a small or medium-sized enterprise rather than just the “micro and small” subset. Until the adopted text and accompanying recitals are public, treat the precise threshold as unsettled and check your own classification against both versions.
What is consistent across every account is who stays out. Companies established outside the EU, meanwhile, would still have to appoint a representative. The relief, in any version, is for EU-based firms only.
The committee also attached a condition the Commission had not proposed: an expiry date tied to future legislation rather than a fixed year. MEPs also support the inclusion of a sunset clause that would automatically end the suspension once comprehensive rules on circularity enter into force. That almost certainly points to the Circular Economy Act the Commission is expected to bring forward, which would make the length of any suspension dependent on a file that has not yet been published.
The two committee votes were not close. The parliamentary committee’s position on batteries and packaging was supported by 74 MEPs, with no votes against and four abstentions. Its position on textiles, footwear, electronic equipment and single-use plastics was supported by 72 MEPs, with no votes against and five abstentions. Unanimity on direction, in other words, with disagreement reserved for scope and duration.
| Element | Commission proposal, Dec 2025 | ENVI committee position, 5 Oct 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Who benefits | All EU-established producers | Only EU-established micro and small enterprises (reports vary on the exact threshold) |
| Non-EU producers | Not covered, AR obligation stays | Not covered, AR obligation stays |
| Duration | Suspended until 1 January 2035 | Suspended with a sunset clause tied to future circularity rules |
| Underlying EPR duties | Registration, reporting, fee payment unaffected | Registration, reporting, fee payment unaffected |
| Status | Formal legislative proposal | Committee position, not yet Parliament’s final position |
What does not change, whichever version wins
It is worth separating the representative obligation from the EPR obligations it sits inside, because the proposal affects only the former. Guidance on the authorised representative role is clear that the planned suspension of the AR obligation does not mean that EPR obligations will be waived. All producers are still required to register with the national Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs), report packaging and product quantities and pay recycling fees. A smaller EU firm that stops needing a named local representative in, say, Poland or Portugal will still have to register its packaging there, report volumes and pay into the national scheme. The representative is a delivery mechanism for those duties, not the duties themselves.
The exclusion of non-EU producers is also unlikely to move. Analysis of the file notes that a proposed suspension of the AR obligation until 2035 applies only to EU-based producers – non-EU companies are explicitly excluded. A manufacturer in the UK, the US or China selling direct to EU consumers should plan on the current Article 45 duty applying indefinitely, regardless of how the SME relief for EU firms is finally settled.
Why the Commission wants this done quickly
The political pressure for speed is coming from the top of DG Environment. EU Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall has called for the swift adoption of planned changes to extended producer responsibility (EPR) rules that would suspend the requirement for smaller businesses to appoint authorised representatives. On the Council side, member states had stalled on the file before the summer but have resumed efforts to find a compromise on extended producer responsibility (EPR) requirements under the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) after talks stalled before the summer, reportedly now exploring a more targeted form of relief of their own.
Retailers and e-commerce groups have pushed hard for the change. SMEunited, representing small businesses, has described the per-country costs that make the current rule expensive for firms trading across several markets: companies active in the EU market are required to register individually in every country to which they export, a process that can exceed EUR500 per country. Where a trader lacks a branch in a particular country, it must designate an authorised representative, meaning a person or entity responsible for packaging compliance, which can add a further EUR200 to EUR800 per country. For a business selling into a dozen member states, that arithmetic adds up before a single euro of recycling fee is paid.
EuroCommerce, representing European retail and wholesale, welcomed the committee vote as a first move rather than a solution. It noted that the representative duty under the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) have exposed differences in national EPR and waste legislation in the EU, and that businesses still face wider uncertainty: authorised representative requirements is one of many practical hurdles facing businesses when implementing the PPWR. Businesses still face uncertainty over how several provisions will be interpreted and applied, while forthcoming secondary legislation could add reporting, calculation and documentation requirements. That is a reminder that the representative question is one unsettled piece of a larger implementation picture, not the whole of it.
Where this sits next to the Commission’s own guidance
The representative debate runs alongside, but separately from, the Commission’s interpretive guidance on the PPWR. DG Environment issued an updated second edition of its Frequently Asked Questions document, published last week, which updates and replaces the first edition of March 30, 2026 (the second edition was in fact published on 3 August 2026, just ahead of the application date). That FAQ complements the Commission’s formally adopted guidance document of 10 June 2026, and it does address delegation around the representative role, even though it cannot pre-empt the legislative outcome. It clarifies that the conformity assessment may be carried out on the manufacturer’s behalf, for instance by a laboratory or certification scheme, and the EU declaration of conformity may be drawn up by an authorised representative under a written mandate. The compilation of the technical documentation itself may not be delegated. The Commission states that the manufacturer remains the sole operator bearing legal responsibility for compliance, and that this responsibility cannot be transferred by contractual arrangement. In practice this probably means that even a fully engaged authorised representative or outside consultant does not take legal exposure off the producer’s books, suspension or no suspension.
Open questions for packaging and compliance teams
Several things remain genuinely unresolved, and teams should treat them as such rather than assume a particular outcome.
- Which threshold survives. The gap between a “fewer than 50 employees, €10m turnover” reading and a “fewer than 250 employees, €50m turnover” reading is large. A company of 120 staff and €30m turnover qualifies under one version and not the other.
- What triggers the sunset clause. Tying the end of the suspension to “comprehensive rules on circularity” means the relief’s lifespan depends on the timing of the Circular Economy Act, a file that has not been tabled.
- Whether Council agrees to EU-only scope. Member states have been discussing their own, reportedly more targeted, compromise. A trilogue could still shift the final boundary.
- Timing against the compliance calendar. With the obligation already live since 12 August 2026, any suspension that is finally adopted is likely to apply forward from a future date, not erase costs already incurred for representatives appointed to meet the current deadline.
What to watch next
The file now moves to the full Parliament. Reporting on the legislative timetable points to Parliament’s first-reading vote in plenary on 19 October 2026, after which the Council would need to adopt its own position before trilogue negotiations on a final text could begin. EuroCommerce’s own account of the committee vote notes the same sequencing: a final plenary vote is expected before negotiations with the Council can begin. Realistically, a binding suspension, in whatever final form, is unlikely before 2027.
| Date | Event | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 10 Dec 2025 | Commission publishes COM(2025) 982, proposing suspension of Art. 45(3) until 2035 | Proposal |
| 12 Aug 2026 | PPWR general application date; Article 45(3) authorised representative duty takes effect with no grace period | Adopted, in force |
| 5 Oct 2026 | ENVI committee backs a narrowed suspension, EU micro/small firms only, sunset clause | Committee position |
| 19 Oct 2026 (expected) | Parliament first-reading plenary vote | Expected |
| Date unset | Council position and trilogue | Pending |
What to do now
- Do not cancel or wind down existing authorised representative arrangements on the strength of the committee vote. Nothing has been adopted and the current obligation remains enforceable.
- Check your company’s classification against both reported thresholds (fewer than 50 employees/€10m, and fewer than 250 employees/€50m) so you know which outcome would actually affect you.
- Keep registration, reporting and fee payment processes running regardless of the representative debate. None of the proposals touch those underlying EPR duties.
- If you sell into the EU from outside it, plan for the Article 45 obligation to stay in place long term; none of the current proposals extend relief to non-EU producers.
- Track the 19 October plenary vote and the subsequent Council position. If today’s leads are superseded by a plenary or Council outcome, follow the newer official text rather than this committee position.
- For anything with legal consequences, such as whether to appoint, retain or terminate a representative contract, take advice based on the adopted text once it exists, not on a committee vote.
Sources
- Source: EU Parliament committee backs EPR reprieve for SME packaging – Packaging Insights
- Source: EP Environment Committee backs narrower exemption from EPR representative rules – EUWID Recycling and Waste Management
- Source: EU Environment Commissioner urges swift suspension of EPR authorised representative requirement – EUWID Recycling and Waste Management
- Source: First step in the right direction: retailers and wholesalers call for wider reform of EPR requirements under PPWR and more – EuroCommerce
- Source: Legislative train schedule, authorised representative for EPR (ii) – European Parliament
- Source: COM(2025) 982 final – European Commission
- Source: European Parliament to vote on EPR rules’ suspension – ProdLaw
- Source: SMEs ask EU to suspend and simplify PPWR’s authorized representative rules – ByteSEU
- Source: EPR Authorized Representative in the EU: Guide for Packaging, WEEE and Batteries – ecosistant