Current developments under the Packaging Law Implementation Act (VerpackDG) continue to spark heated debate. Environmental organisations like WWF Germany, in particular, are still critical of the abolition of the central structure that was initially meant to manage waste avoidance and prevention measures. Whilst they are calling for a significant expansion of state-coordinated intervention, VERE continues to take a clear stand against this.
Prevention organisation rejected – now the WWF is calling for tougher intervention
The organisation that was originally proposed was ultimately removed from the draft bill, and for good reason. Doing so reduced the risk of introducing new levy models and avoided adding further complexity to an already highly bureaucratic regulatory framework. At the same time, the existing take-back and financing systems already in place will remain intact. VERE stresses that this approach is not only more economically sustainable but also better aligned with existing market structures, allowing environmental objectives to continue being pursued without placing additional burdens on the value chain.
Environmental organisations, however, view the failure of the prevention organisation as a major setback, which is why the WWF is now once again pushing for greater state control, stricter intervention and a massive expansion of deposit and take-back systems. According to the environmental organisation, the current draft of the bill is insufficient to effectively counter rising packaging volumes, and companies should therefore bear greater responsibility for environmental goals. At the same time, regulatory pressure at the EU level is increasing, which is cause for concern for many businesses.
Companies fear costs in the millions and never-ending red tape
VERE is firmly opposed to any such plans, as setting up a prevention organisation would mean one thing above all: new costs, more bureaucracy and a lack of transparency regarding the use of funds. Internal calculations estimated additional costs of around five euros per tonne of packaging material.
VERE considers the existing Extended Producer Responsibility schemes, through which companies already finance waste prevention measures, to be sufficiently effective. Additional administrative structures would not only be superfluous but would also put an additional strain on the economy. Furthermore, the current legislative approach already provides for market participants to take independent responsibility for prevention measures. This integrates governance more closely into existing systems rather than creating a new administrative layer.
The future of the Packaging Act remains controversial; VERE does not waver
Producers and retailers now have a lot on the queue. For the time being, they are spared a fresh round of taxes and bureaucracy since the organisation was disbanded.
Yet the political debate is far from over. Whilst the entire industry warns against ever-tighter interventions in existing market mechanisms, environmental organisations are continuing to ramp up the pressure. Thus, the Packaging Act is turning into a fundamental clash between more industry accountability and increased governmental control. The next political decisions could have significant implications for the entire packaging sector. For retailers and producers alike, it remains essential that regulatory measures are transparent, practical, and economically sustainable. VERE will therefore continue to actively advocate for this approach in the political process and maintain a clear position against additional structural burdens.
Keep up with any new developments with the “VERE Insider”.
Not a VERE member yet? Become a VERE member today!
