The packaging regulation must not become a barrier to market entry.

Sustainability is important. There's little doubt about that. Less

Reducing packaging waste, increasing recycling, and focusing more on reuse are worthwhile goals. The European Union is pursuing precisely this approach with the new EU Packaging Regulation (PPWR) .

But while more environmentally friendly packaging is being discussed, another problem is increasingly being pushed into the background: bureaucracy. The new regulation could become a significant burden, especially for small and medium-sized online retailers – and thus affect precisely those companies that are supposed to strengthen the European single market.

A single market with 27 different sets of rules?

The EU has been promoting the free movement of goods for decades. A retailer from Germany should be able to sell their products to France or Spain just as easily as within Germany.

However, the reality is different.

Those who ship packaging to other EU countries often still need to register in the respective national Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) systems. Depending on the country, different reporting obligations, fees, contact persons, and sometimes even local authorized representatives may apply.

That means:

• Registration in multiple countries

• different deadlines

• various portals

• different fee models

• Documentation in multiple languages
  

There is hardly any question of a unified internal market here.

The packaging regulation bureaucracy does not affect everyone equally.

An international corporation employs its own legal and compliance departments. While the additional requirements create extra work, they hardly change the business model.

The situation is different for small businesses.

A family business or a start-up with few employees must meet the same requirements – regardless of whether ten or ten thousand packages are sent to Italy annually.

The result: Fixed costs and administrative expenses increase considerably, even though actual sales abroad are often low.

Sustainability must not become a barrier to market entry.

The goals of the PPWR are fundamentally sound. Packaging should be reduced, recycled more effectively, and reused more frequently.

However, sustainability loses acceptance when it is primarily perceived through additional bureaucracy.

Many smaller retailers are already considering ceasing to supply certain EU countries altogether. The effort involved is often disproportionate to the revenue. Ultimately, the main beneficiaries are large platforms that can easily afford the complex processes.

Less competition – less choice

When smaller retailers stop their international deliveries, this also has consequences for consumers.

• Less choice.

• Less competition.

• Increased dependence on large marketplaces.
  

This could mean that a regulation intended to make the European market more sustainable could unintentionally restrict its diversity.

Sustainability also requires practical rules.

A functioning circular economy and less packaging waste are important goals. Equally important, however, is that companies can meet these requirements with a reasonable amount of effort.

A genuine European single market should not only create common environmental goals, but also uniform and simple procedures for their implementation.

Sustainable policies only have an effect if they protect the environment, promote innovation, and do not unnecessarily complicate competition.

Conclusion

The new EU packaging regulation pursues an important objective. At the same time, it highlights a fundamental problem with many European regulations: good intentions do not automatically lead to good solutions.

When sustainability becomes increasingly intertwined with bureaucracy, small businesses in particular come under pressure – even though they often develop the most innovative and sustainable products.

Sustainability doesn't just mean better packaging. It also means framework conditions that enable companies to operate responsibly without being overwhelmed by administrative costs.