5 ms·

I don't know if this EU regulation will work or not (most likely not), but I can share how it is done in China (where package volume is orders of magnitude high

by mstaoru 1mo ago

I don't know if this EU regulation will work or not (most likely not), but I can share how it is done in China (where package volume is orders of magnitude higher). China identifies "choke points" most packages pass: large platforms and logistics companies. Yes, Chinese e-commerce is more centralized on Alibaba/JD/PDD etc, but there are actually much more logistics companies in China than in EU. They also do not introduce these regulations "from tomorrow" (well, sometimes they do, but it's a different topic). E.g. the non-degradable plastic regulation was issued in 2020 to come in effect in 2025. This gives time to prepare and implement (unlike EU border controls mess...) So now if something is shipped in non-degradable plastic, the logistics company is fined along with the sender. This is much more scalable and easy to implement. Logistics companies might rise their prices a bit in light of expanded work scope, but it would be peanuts compared to every individual seller. Could EU just ask DHL/Hermes/whatever to charge an additional €1 "for recycling"? Yes, but... But of course EU is fundamentally different in a way that the politicians need to please the electorate, so nothing is really planned ahead.

pjc50 1mo ago
Per downthread, this whole crisis arises because of Chinese companies shipping to Europe. The EU Directives are definitely visible in advance, none of this is dropped on people.
- mistrial9 1mo ago
  > this whole crisis arises because of hmm that is not systems thinking there.. there are more layers than that!
- mstaoru 1mo ago
  I think this directive was from Feb 2025? Is 1 year enough for everyone to register in 25 different packaging regulation bodies, appoint representatives, etc etc?.. I also fail to see how this will stop Chinese companies from shipping to Europe. No Chinese company will register in this farce.
  - hvb2 1mo ago
    > No Chinese company will register in this farce. What makes you so sure? It really depends on enforcement but your Chinese company sure isn't going to just drop Europe as a market.
    - mstaoru 1mo ago
      Exactly. I don't see how EU can enforce it against China, when most of the goods are imported from China. Or any other non-EU country, for that matter.
      - etiennebausson 1mo ago
        The client receiving the package (who is in the U.E.) could get fined I assume? Or the package sent back to sender for not being compliant. So the clients will either ask for compliance from the sender or stop ordering there. Doesn't work well for one-time orders, like artisanal novelty items, but it can still have an effect on the rest.
  - philipallstar 1mo ago
    > Is 1 year enough for everyone to register in 25 different packaging regulation bodies, appoint representatives, etc etc?.. Also, are those bodies ready for the volume of applicants? They certainly weren't when MDR came in.
  - mcv 1mo ago
    The issue isn't just the time, but the fees. It's not free to register, and for small sellers, it can be completely crippling.
- xinayder 1mo ago
  Even then, being allowed to ship and package in Germany may as well be valid for other EU countries? I mean, you register in a single country (ideally where your business is) and then the other countries can just accept your packaging bureaucracy?
radicalbyte 1mo ago
Erm I've been talking about this for 4 years now. So I'm not sure how it can "come out of nowhere" unless you're paying 0 attention to really important regulation in your field. There will be a post in 9 months from software companies crying about the PLD and CRA because their leaders were asleep at the wheel for the last half decade.
- ihateolives 1mo ago
  "in your field"? All small businesses and solo enterpreneurs that I know who are hit by this are not "in this field". Their field is making jewelry or knitted toys or something similar. Now many are just not planning to ship EU wide just because it's too high risk for them.
  - teiferer 1mo ago
    > All small businesses and solo enterpreneurs that I know who are hit by this are not "in this field". Their field is making jewelry or knitted toys or something similar. Are they shipping within EU? Then they literally are in the field of shipping within the EU.
    - xboxnolifes 1mo ago
      Thats a stretch of the term "field". Are they also in the field of making money and the field of working within European law?
      - warkdarrior 1mo ago
        Yes, of course. They need to be aware of regulations in all aspects of their business (manufacturing electronics, shipping, consumer warranty, and taxation seem applicable).
        imtringued 1mo ago
        You're somehow under the mistaken idea that the primary issue for businesses is that they don't want to be aware of regulations in all aspects of their businesses. The actual issue that you're sweeping under the rug is that these regulations create a minimum floor on the size of a business. For example, a CRA self assessment including CE will require around $20k in liquid capital that you need out of pocket even if all you want to do is sell a single piece of jewelry with some electronics embedded into it. Not to mention the indirect costs such as guaranteeing 5 years of security updates. There is also the issue that PLD for cloud services effectively means that you cannot easily update your software anymore while it is under investigation by a claimant because that could constitute destruction of evidence. This leads to a catch 22 with the CRA, where you are legally obligated to patch a security vulnerability within 72 hours. The conflict here is that for physical products, the owner receives a unique reproduction of the design plans, whereas with cloud software, the customer is using shared infrastructure that can affect other customers if it is under investigation. So the entire cluster running the software turns into the equivalent of a smartphone. If you want to sell an updated product, you need to sell a new smartphone aka run a new cluster.
mns 1mo ago
> They also do not introduce these regulations "from tomorrow" This wasn't introduced "from tomorrow", people had 1 year and a half to prepare for this (at least) or to protest this. See some comments below how individual countries actually messed this up. > But of course EU is fundamentally different in a way that the politicians need to please the electorate, so nothing is really planned ahead. > I don't know if this EU regulation will work or not (most likely not) It's good that you take the time to just make assumptions about how the EU is bad based on your knowledge on how it operates...
- formerly_proven 1mo ago
  It's yet another EU regulation that requires a rep for each EU country or you're not allowed to do business. EU single market is a bad joke at this point.
  - akie 1mo ago
    [flagged]
    - r3trohack3r 1mo ago
      America does it with 50 states
      - bryanlarsen 1mo ago
        That analogy would hold only if inter-state commerce was the responsibility of the states rather than the federal government.
      - deno 1mo ago
        And EU does it with VAT-OSS scheme which was also separate in each country before. There's just no will to do this with EPR because there's too much money and lobbying power in the recycling cartel.
        1mo ago
quijoteuniv 1mo ago
There will be errors if you try to regulate, but the idea is good, you profit packing in x, you pay. There is a chnce they het it right eventually, hopefully before all the small actors disappear. What is the alternative really. Other parts of the planet is just the big corporations that lobby and decide. People is just left with the pollution
- DiggyJohnson 1mo ago
  Those places also are providing more opportunities for their populations than the EU. It’s way more nuanced than the dichotomy you laid out. The only reason this isn’t extremely obvious is Europe’s cultural and institutional inertia and society wealth. Without these head start I can almost guarantee you wouldn’t be making the same point about fiddling with regulatory minutia.
fallingbananna 1mo ago
>Could EU just ask DHL/Hermes/whatever to charge an additional €1 "for recycling"? Yes, but... Within EU we already pay ~€3 for packages from China. And in Austria we will soon pay additional ~€2 for every delivered package. And 20% VAT. Edit: I am pretty sure at least some part of these already contribute towards recycling. The goal here is likely not just to get more funding for recycling, but rather to use materials that can be recycled in the first place. Which you cannot achieve simply by charging businesses or consumers more.
- deno 1mo ago
  This has nothing to do with EPR. The €3 for packages from China is a fixed processing fee on top of potential tariffs. They got rid of the de minimis €150 limit for tariffs and added fees on top. There was also €25 VAT de minimis limit but that’s also no longer the case since some time.
  - LaurensBER 1mo ago
    Important nuance here is that the €3 for packages from China is a temporary solution and will eventually (2028?) be replaced by a more permanent system which _might_ work out more favourable for electronics. Having said that, the customs duty will go to the EU budget so there's now a direct incentive for the EU to maintain or perhaps even increase this.
- danielovichdk 1mo ago
  It should be much higher. The amount of shit that gets shipped from China to Europe (world) is fucking ludicrous, and people should be taxed heavily for the stupid shit they often don't need.
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
  - FpUser 1mo ago
    [flagged]
goobatrooba 1mo ago
The article ist about a Platform which only facilitates the sale but actual sending is done by the original maker, so that doesn't seem to match.
- mstaoru 1mo ago
  Platform is one choke point, logistics companies (e.g. DHL) is another. In EU logistics would be the easier one. Let them handle all the PPWR circus, charge a little more from the seller.
drnick1 1mo ago
> Could EU just ask DHL/Hermes/whatever to charge an additional €1 "for recycling"? Yes, but... The biggest problem in Europe is the obsession with taxes. Tax on recycling, tax on AI, tax on this, tax on that. So people who want to make money and keep it without having to fight absurd amounts of regulation and red tape just go elsewhere.
- inigyou 1mo ago
  Things cost money.
- piva00 1mo ago
  Externalities have costs and if they aren't accounted for then there's no incentive for reducing those. Taxes are used as a way to account for the cost to society when products and services aren't pricing it.
lokar 1mo ago
Or have the sellers of the packaging pay the fee. So the maker can buy pre-paid packaging.
Danox 1mo ago
But of course EU/WEST is fundamentally different in a way that the politicians need to please the (lobbying companies), so nothing is really planned ahead…
malloryerik 1mo ago
Can you imagine an (Android) app store model? You know when you buy packaging that it's verified. Complies with regulations. Companies submit packaging for review that's cheap, fast, tax-supported, and EU-wide. Doesn't have to be like the FDA. So that reusables could become a thing, I'd be fine honestly with extra charges for most branded packaging. This butts up against freedom of expression I suppose but come on the single-use plastics problem is real. But as described what sounds exactly backwards is the EU model. Radiohead sang, "If I were king you'd be backed up against the wall" but I'd sing, "Send your goods in any verified packaging!"
riffraff 1mo ago
> This gives time to prepare and implement (unlike EU border controls mess...) The Entry/Exit System was supposed to start in 2024[0], it was delayed to 2025, then it was delayed to 2026. They also changed from a full turn on to an incremental rollout over 180 days[1]. At some point you have to turn on things and "bugs will shake out", you can't delay things forever. [0] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/05/19/border-management-council-and-european-parliament-strike-agreement-about-progressive-launch-of-entryexit-system/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025... [1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/07/18/border-management-council-gives-green-light-to-progressive-start-of-entryexit-system/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025...
- mstaoru 1mo ago
  ...this is not the approach I would take with something like border controls.
  - rjsw 1mo ago
    The level of border controls hasn't changed, only the technology used to implement it.
stymaar 1mo ago
> They also do not introduce these regulations "from tomorrow" (well, sometimes they do, but it's a different topic). E.g. the non-degradable plastic regulation was issued in 2020 to come in effect in 2025. This gives time to prepare and implement (unlike EU border controls mess...) The EU does that most of the time, and you have to add the duration of the European legislative process (~2 years in average) so it's hard to say companies don't have time to adapt. The problem is that companies have repeatedly used “not adapting” as a strategy to postpone changes. The plan is quite simple: you don't adapt in time. Then the business lobby will repeat how unprepared the industry is and how they need a delay to prepare. Rince and repeat.
- inigyou 1mo ago
  I remember this with GDPR
- mstaoru 1mo ago
  But you also don't adapt to something that is not necessarily going to be law? Between them passing it and it going into power is less than 1.5 years.
- zvr 1mo ago
  Case in point, the "new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR)" of the article entered into force on 11 February 2025 -- and it had been in discussion and consultation processes for years before.
vintermann 1mo ago
> But of course EU is fundamentally different in a way that the politicians need to please the electorate, Are we talking about the same EU? In my experience EU is used as a scapegoat by national government, to push through unpopular legislation that they want "because it's an EU requirement". No one checks if they actually supported that same policy when it was actually decided in the EU - it would have been a ton of work too, since how decisions are actually made isn't exactly transparent. I think it's by design, EU is in large part made to take the blame for domestically unpopular policy. So it's not a surprise that UK conservatives eventually pivoted from profitably using the EU as a scapegoat, to sacrificing that same ghost.
GreenLightGo 1mo ago
The "choke point" approach makes more sense. Regulating a few large logistics companies is much easier than enforcing rules on millions of small sellers. The risk is that EU regulation ends up becoming a competitive advantage for Amazon and other big platforms.
doikor 1mo ago
PPWR passed in August 2025 and this part of it came into effect now (a year later). There are other parts of the same regulation that come into effect in 2030. This is EU doing it in a long span of time similar to GDPR or DMA. A lot of companies just choose to ignore the regulation until a week or two before it comes into effect.

by mstaoru 1mo ago

pjc50 1mo ago

Per downthread, this whole crisis arises because of Chinese companies shipping to Europe. The EU Directives are definitely visible in advance, none of this is dropped on people.

mistrial9 1mo ago
> this whole crisis arises because of hmm that is not systems thinking there.. there are more layers than that!
mstaoru 1mo ago
I think this directive was from Feb 2025? Is 1 year enough for everyone to register in 25 different packaging regulation bodies, appoint representatives, etc etc?.. I also fail to see how this will stop Chinese companies from shipping to Europe. No Chinese company will register in this farce.
- hvb2 1mo ago
  > No Chinese company will register in this farce. What makes you so sure? It really depends on enforcement but your Chinese company sure isn't going to just drop Europe as a market.
  - mstaoru 1mo ago
    Exactly. I don't see how EU can enforce it against China, when most of the goods are imported from China. Or any other non-EU country, for that matter.
    - etiennebausson 1mo ago
      The client receiving the package (who is in the U.E.) could get fined I assume? Or the package sent back to sender for not being compliant. So the clients will either ask for compliance from the sender or stop ordering there. Doesn't work well for one-time orders, like artisanal novelty items, but it can still have an effect on the rest.
- philipallstar 1mo ago
  > Is 1 year enough for everyone to register in 25 different packaging regulation bodies, appoint representatives, etc etc?.. Also, are those bodies ready for the volume of applicants? They certainly weren't when MDR came in.
- mcv 1mo ago
  The issue isn't just the time, but the fees. It's not free to register, and for small sellers, it can be completely crippling.
xinayder 1mo ago
Even then, being allowed to ship and package in Germany may as well be valid for other EU countries? I mean, you register in a single country (ideally where your business is) and then the other countries can just accept your packaging bureaucracy?

radicalbyte 1mo ago

Erm I've been talking about this for 4 years now. So I'm not sure how it can "come out of nowhere" unless you're paying 0 attention to really important regulation in your field. There will be a post in 9 months from software companies crying about the PLD and CRA because their leaders were asleep at the wheel for the last half decade.

ihateolives 1mo ago
"in your field"? All small businesses and solo enterpreneurs that I know who are hit by this are not "in this field". Their field is making jewelry or knitted toys or something similar. Now many are just not planning to ship EU wide just because it's too high risk for them.
- teiferer 1mo ago
  > All small businesses and solo enterpreneurs that I know who are hit by this are not "in this field". Their field is making jewelry or knitted toys or something similar. Are they shipping within EU? Then they literally are in the field of shipping within the EU.
  - xboxnolifes 1mo ago
    Thats a stretch of the term "field". Are they also in the field of making money and the field of working within European law?
    - warkdarrior 1mo ago
      Yes, of course. They need to be aware of regulations in all aspects of their business (manufacturing electronics, shipping, consumer warranty, and taxation seem applicable).
      - imtringued 1mo ago
        You're somehow under the mistaken idea that the primary issue for businesses is that they don't want to be aware of regulations in all aspects of their businesses. The actual issue that you're sweeping under the rug is that these regulations create a minimum floor on the size of a business. For example, a CRA self assessment including CE will require around $20k in liquid capital that you need out of pocket even if all you want to do is sell a single piece of jewelry with some electronics embedded into it. Not to mention the indirect costs such as guaranteeing 5 years of security updates. There is also the issue that PLD for cloud services effectively means that you cannot easily update your software anymore while it is under investigation by a claimant because that could constitute destruction of evidence. This leads to a catch 22 with the CRA, where you are legally obligated to patch a security vulnerability within 72 hours. The conflict here is that for physical products, the owner receives a unique reproduction of the design plans, whereas with cloud software, the customer is using shared infrastructure that can affect other customers if it is under investigation. So the entire cluster running the software turns into the equivalent of a smartphone. If you want to sell an updated product, you need to sell a new smartphone aka run a new cluster.

mns 1mo ago

> They also do not introduce these regulations "from tomorrow" This wasn't introduced "from tomorrow", people had 1 year and a half to prepare for this (at least) or to protest this. See some comments below how individual countries actually messed this up. > But of course EU is fundamentally different in a way that the politicians need to please the electorate, so nothing is really planned ahead. > I don't know if this EU regulation will work or not (most likely not) It's good that you take the time to just make assumptions about how the EU is bad based on your knowledge on how it operates...

formerly_proven 1mo ago
It's yet another EU regulation that requires a rep for each EU country or you're not allowed to do business. EU single market is a bad joke at this point.
- akie 1mo ago
  [flagged]
  - r3trohack3r 1mo ago
    America does it with 50 states
    - bryanlarsen 1mo ago
      That analogy would hold only if inter-state commerce was the responsibility of the states rather than the federal government.
    - deno 1mo ago
      And EU does it with VAT-OSS scheme which was also separate in each country before. There's just no will to do this with EPR because there's too much money and lobbying power in the recycling cartel.
      - 1mo ago

quijoteuniv 1mo ago

There will be errors if you try to regulate, but the idea is good, you profit packing in x, you pay. There is a chnce they het it right eventually, hopefully before all the small actors disappear. What is the alternative really. Other parts of the planet is just the big corporations that lobby and decide. People is just left with the pollution

DiggyJohnson 1mo ago
Those places also are providing more opportunities for their populations than the EU. It’s way more nuanced than the dichotomy you laid out. The only reason this isn’t extremely obvious is Europe’s cultural and institutional inertia and society wealth. Without these head start I can almost guarantee you wouldn’t be making the same point about fiddling with regulatory minutia.

fallingbananna 1mo ago

>Could EU just ask DHL/Hermes/whatever to charge an additional €1 "for recycling"? Yes, but... Within EU we already pay ~€3 for packages from China. And in Austria we will soon pay additional ~€2 for every delivered package. And 20% VAT. Edit: I am pretty sure at least some part of these already contribute towards recycling. The goal here is likely not just to get more funding for recycling, but rather to use materials that can be recycled in the first place. Which you cannot achieve simply by charging businesses or consumers more.

deno 1mo ago
This has nothing to do with EPR. The €3 for packages from China is a fixed processing fee on top of potential tariffs. They got rid of the de minimis €150 limit for tariffs and added fees on top. There was also €25 VAT de minimis limit but that’s also no longer the case since some time.
- LaurensBER 1mo ago
  Important nuance here is that the €3 for packages from China is a temporary solution and will eventually (2028?) be replaced by a more permanent system which _might_ work out more favourable for electronics. Having said that, the customs duty will go to the EU budget so there's now a direct incentive for the EU to maintain or perhaps even increase this.
danielovichdk 1mo ago
It should be much higher. The amount of shit that gets shipped from China to Europe (world) is fucking ludicrous, and people should be taxed heavily for the stupid shit they often don't need.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- FpUser 1mo ago
  [flagged]

goobatrooba 1mo ago

The article ist about a Platform which only facilitates the sale but actual sending is done by the original maker, so that doesn't seem to match.

mstaoru 1mo ago
Platform is one choke point, logistics companies (e.g. DHL) is another. In EU logistics would be the easier one. Let them handle all the PPWR circus, charge a little more from the seller.

drnick1 1mo ago

> Could EU just ask DHL/Hermes/whatever to charge an additional €1 "for recycling"? Yes, but... The biggest problem in Europe is the obsession with taxes. Tax on recycling, tax on AI, tax on this, tax on that. So people who want to make money and keep it without having to fight absurd amounts of regulation and red tape just go elsewhere.

inigyou 1mo ago
Things cost money.
piva00 1mo ago
Externalities have costs and if they aren't accounted for then there's no incentive for reducing those. Taxes are used as a way to account for the cost to society when products and services aren't pricing it.

lokar 1mo ago

Or have the sellers of the packaging pay the fee. So the maker can buy pre-paid packaging.

Danox 1mo ago

But of course EU/WEST is fundamentally different in a way that the politicians need to please the (lobbying companies), so nothing is really planned ahead…

malloryerik 1mo ago

Can you imagine an (Android) app store model? You know when you buy packaging that it's verified. Complies with regulations. Companies submit packaging for review that's cheap, fast, tax-supported, and EU-wide. Doesn't have to be like the FDA. So that reusables could become a thing, I'd be fine honestly with extra charges for most branded packaging. This butts up against freedom of expression I suppose but come on the single-use plastics problem is real. But as described what sounds exactly backwards is the EU model. Radiohead sang, "If I were king you'd be backed up against the wall" but I'd sing, "Send your goods in any verified packaging!"

riffraff 1mo ago

> This gives time to prepare and implement (unlike EU border controls mess...) The Entry/Exit System was supposed to start in 2024[0], it was delayed to 2025, then it was delayed to 2026. They also changed from a full turn on to an incremental rollout over 180 days[1]. At some point you have to turn on things and "bugs will shake out", you can't delay things forever. [0] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/05/19/border-management-council-and-european-parliament-strike-agreement-about-progressive-launch-of-entryexit-system/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025... [1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/07/18/border-management-council-gives-green-light-to-progressive-start-of-entryexit-system/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025...

mstaoru 1mo ago
...this is not the approach I would take with something like border controls.
- rjsw 1mo ago
  The level of border controls hasn't changed, only the technology used to implement it.

stymaar 1mo ago

> They also do not introduce these regulations "from tomorrow" (well, sometimes they do, but it's a different topic). E.g. the non-degradable plastic regulation was issued in 2020 to come in effect in 2025. This gives time to prepare and implement (unlike EU border controls mess...) The EU does that most of the time, and you have to add the duration of the European legislative process (~2 years in average) so it's hard to say companies don't have time to adapt. The problem is that companies have repeatedly used “not adapting” as a strategy to postpone changes. The plan is quite simple: you don't adapt in time. Then the business lobby will repeat how unprepared the industry is and how they need a delay to prepare. Rince and repeat.

inigyou 1mo ago
I remember this with GDPR
mstaoru 1mo ago
But you also don't adapt to something that is not necessarily going to be law? Between them passing it and it going into power is less than 1.5 years.
zvr 1mo ago
Case in point, the "new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR)" of the article entered into force on 11 February 2025 -- and it had been in discussion and consultation processes for years before.

vintermann 1mo ago

> But of course EU is fundamentally different in a way that the politicians need to please the electorate, Are we talking about the same EU? In my experience EU is used as a scapegoat by national government, to push through unpopular legislation that they want "because it's an EU requirement". No one checks if they actually supported that same policy when it was actually decided in the EU - it would have been a ton of work too, since how decisions are actually made isn't exactly transparent. I think it's by design, EU is in large part made to take the blame for domestically unpopular policy. So it's not a surprise that UK conservatives eventually pivoted from profitably using the EU as a scapegoat, to sacrificing that same ghost.

GreenLightGo 1mo ago

The "choke point" approach makes more sense. Regulating a few large logistics companies is much easier than enforcing rules on millions of small sellers. The risk is that EU regulation ends up becoming a competitive advantage for Amazon and other big platforms.

doikor 1mo ago

PPWR passed in August 2025 and this part of it came into effect now (a year later). There are other parts of the same regulation that come into effect in 2030. This is EU doing it in a long span of time similar to GDPR or DMA. A lot of companies just choose to ignore the regulation until a week or two before it comes into effect.