On 20 October 2026 the European Parliament adopted its negotiating position on a proposal to suspend one of the more disliked administrative duties in the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation: the requirement to appoint an authorised representative in every member state where a producer sells packaged goods. The vote matters less for what it changes today, which is nothing yet, than for how far it has moved from the Commission’s original plan.
What the Parliament voted for
MEPs backed two linked texts covering packaging, batteries, textiles, footwear, electronics and single-use plastics. The position on batteries and packaging waste passed with 616 votes in favour, 9 against and 39 abstentions, out of 664 MEPs voting. The companion file covering textiles, footwear, electrical equipment and single-use plastics passed with 612 in favour, 8 against and 39 abstentions.
Both results are negotiating positions, not law. Negotiations on the final texts can begin once the Council of the EU has also agreed its own position. Nothing changes for packaging teams until that happens and a final text is adopted.
How this differs from the Commission’s proposal
The underlying file is the one flagged in our background note on COM(2025) 982: a Commission proposal, tabled 10 December 2025, to suspend the Article 45(3) authorised representative obligation. The Commission had proposed a complete suspension until 2035 for all EU-based companies, regardless of size.
Parliament rejected that breadth. MEPs instead back a more targeted suspension that would apply only to EU-based small and micro enterprises, defined as firms with fewer than 50 employees and an annual turnover or balance sheet under €10 million, running until 2035 or until a more comprehensive circular economy act is adopted. Rapporteur Ingeborg ter Laak specified that companies established outside the EU would remain subject to the current rules regardless of their size.
MEPs were also explicit about the limits of the relief. They clarified that the suspension does not affect other obligations under the EPR system, such as waste-prevention duties or fees. A small producer that qualifies would stop needing a named representative in each country of sale, but would still register, report and pay as before.
A Left/Green amendment tried to go further in the other direction. MEPs Emma Fourreau and Jutta Paulus unsuccessfully tried to limit the exemption to the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation alone, rather than extending it across all six waste streams. The broader, six-stream exemption was supported by over 80% of lawmakers instead. Paulus argued that large platforms such as Amazon, Temu and Zalando generate huge amounts of packaging waste even as small sellers struggle with red tape, a point that shaped debate but not the final vote.
MEPs also built in a guardrail against gaming the threshold. To stop larger firms taking advantage of the exemption, MEPs are proposing a safeguard clause to prevent firms from splitting or restructuring to qualify as small businesses.
Table: the representative duty, before and after the proposals
| Company type | Today (since 12 Aug 2026) | Commission’s proposal (Dec 2025) | Parliament’s position (20 Oct 2026) |
|---|---|---|---|
| EU-based small or micro enterprise (fewer than 50 staff, turnover/balance sheet under €10m) | Must appoint an authorised representative in every member state of sale | Suspended until 2035 | Suspended until 2035, or until a circular economy act is adopted, whichever comes first |
| EU-based larger enterprise | Must appoint an authorised representative in every member state of sale | Suspended until 2035 | No change; obligation continues |
| Company established outside the EU | Must appoint an authorised representative in every member state of sale | Not scoped to non-EU firms | Remains subject to current rules regardless of size |
| All producers, any size | Registration, fees and waste-prevention duties apply | Unchanged | Unchanged; suspension covers only the representative-appointment duty |
Why the representative duty became a flashpoint
The obligation has only been live since August. When the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation took effect on 12 August 2026, registration and the naming of representatives in each country of sale became mandatory, and so far only about two-thirds of EU countries have implemented the requirements, according to one account of the vote. The patchy national rollout matters: a producer trying to comply fully right now may find some member states still lack the administrative machinery to register against.
The cost fell hardest on small, cross-border sellers. The new rules prompted a backlash over the summer by small business owners who said the thousands of euros in administrative costs meant they could no longer afford to ship to other EU countries. That complaint is what the Commission’s suspension proposal, and now Parliament’s narrower version, is trying to answer.
Industry reaction to the compromise has been mixed. Eva Behling, head of legal and compliance at the German e-commerce and mail order association bevh, said the relief does not go far enough, reflecting a view among some retailer groups that the Commission’s original, broader suspension was the better fix.
What packaging and compliance teams should take from this today
In practice, this probably means no immediate change to your obligations. The vote is a Parliament position ahead of trilogue, not an amendment to Regulation (EU) 2025/40 itself. Until the Council agrees its own position and a final text is adopted, the Article 45(3) duty to appoint a representative in each member state of sale stands as published.
For larger EU and non-EU producers, the practical message is to keep building out representative coverage as planned. Parliament’s text does not touch your obligation, and there is no indication the Council will propose extending relief to bigger companies.
For small and micro EU producers, this is a reason to track the file closely rather than to pause compliance work. Delara Burkhardt of the S&D group said the requirement to appoint an authorised representative in each member state could pose a significant obstacle, particularly for small businesses, and she called for a swift agreement so that retailers could benefit from the relief measures during the Christmas shopping period. That timeline looks optimistic. Not every MEP agrees it will move that fast: Jutta Paulus was reportedly more pessimistic, saying trilogues were unlikely to begin before January.
It is worth separating this debate from relief that already exists. The Commission has published guidance clarifying that small producers generating less than 10 tonnes of packaging per calendar year already receive exemptions and flexibilities under the regulation. That volume-based threshold is distinct from the employee and turnover-based threshold MEPs are proposing for the representative suspension, and it already applies regardless of how the Article 45(3) talks end. Teams working through SME relief should check which threshold applies to their situation rather than assuming one covers the other.
Open questions
Several details are still unsettled. The exact wording of the safeguard clause against corporate restructuring has not been finalised, and how regulators would test whether a group has split itself to stay under the 50-employee threshold is not yet clear. The Council has not published its own position, so it is not known whether member states will accept Parliament’s narrower scope, push back toward the Commission’s broader suspension, or propose something else again.
The bigger unknown is timing against the planned circular economy act. Parliament’s text ties the suspension’s end date to whichever comes first: 2035, or that act’s adoption. The Commission’s provisional timetable had pointed to a Circular Economy Act proposal around 11 November 2026, after the original third-quarter 2026 target slipped when its Regulatory Scrutiny Board raised concerns about the impact assessment, though other reporting has pointed to a date closer to mid-November. Commissioner Jessika Roswall has also cited the need to ease the burden on small and medium-sized enterprises as part of that package, which could mean the representative question gets folded into a larger EPR reform before this suspension even runs its course. The proposal is expected to include measures to harmonise EPR systems as well as waste classifications and definitions, which would affect packaging producers well beyond the representative duty.
What to watch next
- The Council of the EU’s position on the same file; trilogue cannot start until member states agree their own stance.
- The Circular Economy Act proposal, expected in November 2026, which could set a harder end date for this suspension or reopen EPR rules more broadly.
- National implementation of the representative and registration requirements in the member states that have not yet put the administrative systems in place.
- Whether the final safeguard clause language is tight enough to satisfy MEPs who wanted the relief limited to genuinely small, independent firms.
What to do now
- Do not change your representative arrangements based on this vote. The Article 45(3) duty remains in force as published until a final, adopted text says otherwise.
- If your business is close to the 50-employee or €10 million turnover/balance-sheet threshold, start documenting your group structure now; a safeguard clause against restructuring is part of Parliament’s position.
- Check separately whether your packaging volumes fall under the existing 10-tonnes-per-year threshold that already carries flexibilities, since that relief is independent of the representative debate.
- If you sell into member states that have not yet implemented registration systems, keep records of your compliance attempts; enforcement gaps are a member-state issue, not a reason to delay your own filings.
- Have a compliance adviser confirm your obligations against the official text before making commercial decisions; this article is information, not legal advice.
Sources
- Source: Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) and small businesses: What do I need to know? (European Commission, DG Environment)
- Source: Suspending the application of the rules on the appointment of an authorised representative (HowTheyVote.eu vote record)
- Source: EU Parliament backs simplified waste compliance rules for small businesses (ieu-monitoring)
- Source: MEPs back small-business exemption from costly waste-reduction compliance (Rapporteur)
- Source: MEPs Vote to Scrap Country-by-Country Waste Envoys for Firms Under 50 Staff (ad-hoc-news)
- Source: EU Commission offers EPR guidance for small businesses under PPWR (Packaging Europe)
- Source: Circular Economy Act proposal expected on 11 November (EUWID Recycling and Waste Management)
- Source: MEPs back waste exemption for small businesses amid circular economy push (Brussels Times)
Header photo of European Parliament: European Parliament, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.