With the COM (2025) 982 and COM (2025) 983 proposals, the European Commission is currently planning to suspend the mandatory appointment of an authorised representative under Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) until 2035. This decision is primarily justified on the grounds of reducing bureaucracy, cutting costs and strengthening competitiveness in the internal market. At first glance, these objectives appear sensible. Easing some of the burden on the economy, particularly on small and medium-sized enterprises, is undoubtedly an important political priority.
On closer inspection, however, it becomes clear that suspending the obligation to appoint an authorised representative would not lead to simplification; on the contrary, it even poses significant risks to enforcement, fair competition and the functioning of the European circular economy. VERE therefore strongly warns against this move. More than twenty years of practical experience with EPR schemes demonstrate that the authorised representative is not merely an administrative burden but is indeed a vital element in ensuring effective environmental and market regulation across Europe.
Is bureaucracy truly being reduced – or merely shifted?
A key argument put forward by those in favour of the suspension is that appointing an authorised representative poses an unnecessary administrative hurdle. In reality, however, the opposite is true. The complex requirements of national EPR schemes remain in place regardless of whether an authorised representative is appointed or not. Registration obligations, quantity reports, financial contributions and technical requirements remain unchanged. If the authorised representative is abolished, these obligations do not disappear – they are simply passed on directly to producers themselves. This does not result in a reduction in bureaucracy, but rather a shift in administrative responsibilities. In future, producers will have to interpret national regulations themselves, overcome language barriers and deal with various different administrative structures. At the same time, authorities lose their most important point of contact in the respective Member State. Authorised representatives are familiar with national legislation, speak the official language and understand enforcement practices. Retaining representatives is ultimately the most effective strategy for minimising bureaucratic complexity, especially for producers and relevant authorities.
The short-term illusion of cost savings
Allegedly, the suspension will result in cost savings for companies. Whilst engaging a representative does incur costs, these should always be assessed within the context of the resulting benefits. The authorised representative takes on key compliance tasks that would otherwise have to be established internally. For small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, it would be significantly more expensive to maintain legal expertise, administrative capacity and local contacts in every single export market. In the short term, individual companies might even save a small amount of money. In the long run, however, significant additional costs would arise this way, for example, due to legal uncertainties, errors in the implementation of national regulations or more complex enforcement procedures. Suspending representatives would thus achieve the exact opposite of what it is intended to do and lead to higher costs, greater uncertainty and additional administrative responsibilities.
Competitiveness and the internal market
The European Commission claims that removing the need for authorised representatives would ease market entry and boost the competitiveness of European companies. Yet this argument, too, hardly holds up to closer scrutiny. Authorised representatives stabilise the internal market by ensuring that all market participants adhere to the same rules. Without this instance, the risk of so-called ‘free riders’ – meaning companies that deliberately circumvent their obligations and thereby gain unfair competitive advantages – increases. This issue by no means only affects suppliers from outside the European Union. Even within the EU, there are already numerous cases today in which producers fail to meet their obligations. Authorised representatives play an essential part in preventing such breaches or detecting them at an early stage. If this supervisory body were to be abolished, there would be a risk of massive distortions of competition at the expense of companies that act in compliance with the law.
The practical reality of enforcement
In theory, cross-border enforcement within the EU is possible. In practice, though, it proves extremely difficult. Variations in administrative frameworks, language barriers and intricate legal processes frequently hinder the effective enforcement of EPR obligations. It is precisely for this reason that the role of the authorised representative has been progressively strengthened and clarified over the years. Authorised representatives ensure that legally accountable and responsible entities exist in all relevant Member States. Without this structure, authorities lose a central point of contact – and with it, a crucial instrument of market supervision. The consequence would be enforcement shortcomings, which would quickly lead to systematic breaches of the rules, particularly in e-commerce and cross-border sales.
A proven instrument of the circular economy
The role of the authorised representative has evolved over many years and has been deliberately integrated into European EPR systems. It plays a decisive role in ensuring that environmental targets, recycling rates and financing mechanisms of the circular economy can actually be implemented. The planned suspension would call this tried-and-tested system into question without a sufficient impact assessment. At the same time, it contradicts key political objectives of the European Union – such as the Green Deal, circular economy strategies and the Compass for Competitiveness.
Conclusion: Simplification must not become deregulation
The desire to reduce bureaucracy is justified. However, abolishing the mandatory authorised representative is not the right approach. Authorised representatives make it possible for companies without their own branch in the relevant EU country to operate there and, in many cases, forms the basis for officially registering their products for legal sale. This creates a level playing field for all market participants. VERE members based in Germany are not required to have a representative for the German market. Suppliers from outside Germany, on the other hand, are faced with regulatory enforcement. If authorised representation is abolished, free-riders from all over the world, registered and unregistered, will be able to sell without fear of enforcement, whilst local companies will find themselves caught in the crossfire of requirements and held solely responsible.
