FEAD calls for maintaining the national authorised representative requirement position on the environment omnibus

The Authorised Representative (AR) is a central element of effective EPR enforcement—not a mere administrative formality. The authorised representative serves as the essential connection between non-established producers and national enforcement authorities for registration, reporting, and financial contribution for end-of-life management of the products, assuming legal responsibility.

FEAD, the European Waste Management Association, representing the private waste and resource management industry across Europe, does not support the proposed suspension of the AR as this would significantly increase the risk of free riders. The Commission justifies the proposed suspension with the aim of reducing the administrative burden on economic operators; a comprehensive impact assessment is not yet available. In fact, the associated risks are not reduced, but redistributed: from producers to EPR schemes, waste management companies and national authorities – without any provision for compensation or an equivalent replacement mechanism. This is incompatible with the objective of a functioning circular economy and a level playing field in the European single market.

In FEAD’s view, removing authorised representatives gives rise to the following particularly serious problems:

1. Threat to the financing and system integrity of EPR schemes

The suspension of the AR requirement strikes at the very heart of EPR schemes’ core function: the comprehensive registration of all manufacturers and the cost-based financing of waste management that this enables. Without a legally responsible AR, there is no clear basis for attributing costs to non-established manufacturers – with far-reaching consequences:

• Registration gaps. EPR schemes can no longer reliably register manufacturers without ARs and hold them accountable for scheme financing.
• Underfunding. Missing cost contributions jeopardise the systems’ financial basis and can lead to deficits in waste management – particularly in the areas of distance selling and e-commerce.
• Distortion of competition. Manufacturers registered in compliance with the law are systematically disadvantaged compared to unregistered market players. This ‘free-rider’ problem is known to exist in several Member States and, based on experience, leads to declining system participation and further deterioration of funding.

2. Planning uncertainty and cost risks for waste management companies

Waste management companies plan and calculate on the basis of contractually agreed volumes and stable funding streams from the EPR schemes. The suspension of the AR obligation undermines this basis in several respects. On the one hand, there is a risk of an incalculable funding shortfall if a growing proportion of products placed on the market is no longer recorded and billed across the schemes. Secondly, operational risks arise due to a lack of transparency regarding which manufacturers are responsible for and liable to pay for which product quantities. Existing business models and contractual relationships, which are built on stable system financing, are subject to long-term strain as a result of this legal uncertainty.

3. Enforcement shortcomings and increased administrative burden for authorities

For the competent national authorities, the AR fulfils an indispensable function: they are the legally binding and accessible point of contact for registration, reporting and enforcement – particularly in cross-border cases where directly holding foreign manufacturers liable is considerably more costly or effectively impossible. From the authorities’ perspective, the loss of this function would have several concrete consequences:

• Enforcement shortcomings. Without clearly identifiable responsible parties, the enforcement of EPR obligations against non-established producers would be made considerably more difficult – a problem that will become structurally more acute as distance selling continues to grow.
• Fragmentation of the legal framework. In the absence of harmonised alternative mechanisms at EU level, Member States would develop different national solutions – resulting in unequal treatment and distortions of competition within the internal market.
• Adjustment costs. The restructuring of registers, IT systems and administrative procedures would entail significant transition costs, for which the Commission’s proposal provides neither an impact assessment nor compensation mechanisms.

FEAD’s demands

FEAD calls on the EU legislators to refrain from suspending the obligation to appoint an authorised representative.

Furthermore, FEAD calls on the institutions to take the following principles into account in a binding manner during the further legislative process:

• No suspension without an impact assessment. The authorised representative requirement must not be suspended until a comprehensive impact assessment and genuine consultation with the stakeholders concerned – EPR schemes, the waste management sector, and public authorities – have been carried out.
• Harmonised alternative mechanisms. Should an adjustment to the legal framework be sought, harmonised alternative instruments must be developed at EU level that offer equivalent enforcement guarantees and prevent legal fragmentation.
• Upholding the polluter-pays principle. The Commission’s simplification agenda must not result in manufacturers being effectively relieved of their product responsibility and the costs of waste management being passed on to other stakeholders.
• Representation of the waste management sector’s interests. The perspectives of EPR schemes, waste management companies and enforcement authorities must be structurally incorporated into the further process.

FEAD’s proposals

The Circular Economy Act will address and improve the EPR framework (based on an impact assessment), and the AR should be part of this. A better AR system will significantly improve compliance, close existing enforcement gaps, and support a fair and functioning internal market across the European Union. To strengthen enforcement and improve the effectiveness of EPR, we strongly recommend the following reforms:

• Harmonise the definition, legal role, and liability of ARs across all EPR-relevant areas and Member States through clear EU legislation
• Establish a centralised, publicly accessible EU register of ARs, clearly linking each representative to their respective producers and EPR schemes
• Introduce minimum qualification standards and a certification framework for ARs to ensure professionalism and accountability
• Require professional liability insurance for ARs to safeguard producers and the integrity of the compliance system
• Simplify the process of appointing ARs by eliminating disproportionate requirements such as notarised powers of attorney or unnecessary formalities
• Clarify the definition of ‘establishment’ in the context of EPR, especially for digital commerce, to ensure consistent application across the EU
• Allow and encourage the appointment of a single AR per country for multiple EPR streams to reduce duplication and administrative burden

Background information – current challenges

The system lacks harmonisation across the EU. Not only between Member States, but also across different EPR streams (packaging, WEEE, batteries, textiles, furniture). This means, that definitions, responsibilities, and liability rules differ.

For example, in some jurisdictions, the AR is fully liable for compliance failures; in others, liability remains solely with the producer. This legal uncertainty creates compliance risks for companies and hampers enforcement authorities in effectively overseeing producer obligations. Enforcement gaps are further exacerbated by the absence of a centralised register or tracking mechanism for ARs. Authorities often do not know who is acting as an AR for which producer and for which product group, making it difficult to monitor compliance — especially in the growing context of cross-border e-commerce. Unscrupulous actors can exploit these loopholes, and compliant producers face unfair competition from those who ignore their obligations entirely.

Moreover, the quality and accountability of ARs are currently unregulated. In most Member States, anyone with a legal presence can act as an AR, regardless of their knowledge, capacity, or reliability. This lack of quality control increases the risk of non-compliance for producers relying on these representatives to handle critical tasks such as registration, reporting, and communication with national authorities.

The administrative burden for appointing ARs is another major concern. Some Member States require formal notarisation or legalization of powers of attorney, even for minor compliance tasks, creating an unnecessary barrier for businesses, especially SMEs. In addition, there is no EU-wide clarity on what constitutes a ‘legal establishment’ for the purpose of appointing an AR—an issue particularly relevant for online sellers and platforms. Furthermore, it should be clarified that a single AR may represent a producer across multiple EPR systems within a Member State, in order to reduce fragmentation and costs.

FEAD, the European Waste Management Association, represents the entire waste management value chain, from collection and sorting to recycling, energy recovery, and final disposal. It brings together the private waste and resource management industry across Europe through its 21 national member associations and associate members, which collectively represent over 3,000 companies. Together, the sector provides more than 500,000 local jobs and fuels €5 billion in investments into the economy every year. For more information, please contact: info@fead.be