Policy Engagement Overview
This policy summary assesses engagement from a subset of entities, specifically industry associations and companies within the electronics, plastics, chemicals, textiles, construction and metals sectors, as well as progressive entities and cross-sector associations on the InfluenceMap database.
The aggregated evidence of corporate and industry lobbying on the ESPR, focusing on the electronics, plastics, chemicals, construction, steel and textiles sectors, shows top-line cross-sector support for the proposal’s key elements. However, oppositional engagement attempted to weaken several elements of the ESPR, such as the ecodesign requirements, by limiting their scope and ambition level.
Long-term Lobbying Trends
The extension of the scope of the ESPR to include non-energy related products gained top-line cross-sector support, including strong support from steel industry association Eurofer and textile company H&M.
EU industry generally supported eco-design requirements for products, including companies ArcelorMittal, Euratex, Cummins, Fortum, IKEA and associations the Federation of German Industries and SolarPower Europe.
The construction and chemical sectors opposed their inclusion. CEMBUREAU, Saint-Gobain, Rockwool and Cefic preferred existing legislation to the ESPR.
The chemicals sector and cross-sector associations did not support banning substances which inhibit product recyclability, including the Federation of German Industry (BDI), German Chemicals Association (VCI) and LyondellBasell.
The chemical and cement sectors were unsupportive of a mandate for a minimum recycled content level in all products, such as CEMBUREAU, Cefic and Covestro.
The textiles, chemicals and steel sectors supported adapting Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) fees based on product sustainability, which would require producers to take financial responsibility for the end-of-life management of products and packaging. Companies and industry associations H&M, Unilever, Cefic, Eurofer and SSAB were in favor of the measure.
The textiles, steel and construction sectors supported mandatory Green Public Procurement (GPP) targets and criteria, including Euratex, Cembureau and ArcelorMittal.
The electronic and chemical sectors opposed Green Public Procurement guidelines, including BASF and industry associations DigitalEurope and Cefic.
The digital and retail sectors advocated for exclusions from a ban on the destruction of unsold goods, including DigitalEurope, EuroCommerce, Euratex and Hewlett Packard.
New engagement trends since the EU Commission’s 2022 Proposal
Cross-sector associations and the chemicals sector including BusinessEurope and BASF proposed regulating substances of concern in the final product only.
The chemicals and plastics industry strongly opposed its inclusion in the first priority group as an intermediate product, including Lanxess BASF and industry associations VCI, PlasticsEurope and the American Chamber of Commerce to the EU.
Impacts on Policy Ambition
By considering the potential scenarios in the EU Commission's original Impact Assessment Report for the Sustainable Products Initiative, and comparing this to the final proposal, a gauge of the impact of industry lobbying can be measured. In this case, intense engagement from several sectors appears to have somewhat weakened the ambition of the EU Commission’s proposal.
EU Commission Proposal
-
Scope The proposed extended scope of the ESPR included all physical products on the EU market, excluding food, feed, cement and medicinal products. A bid by the chemical sector to be excluded from the scope of the ESPR was unsuccessful.
-
Ecodesign requirements: The policy proposal included ecodesign requirements for product groups to regulate aspects such as durability, reparability, recycled content, and the presence of substances of concern. However, in line with advocacy from the chemical industry, it did not ban specific products or materials as suggested in the impact assessment.
-
Delegated Acts: The Commission proposed primarily setting specific ambition levels for requirements for the ecodesign of products through delegated acts for each product group.
-
Incentives for Sustainable Products The ESPR proposal introduced binding Green Public Procurement targets and criteria. The EU Commission’s impact assessment proposed additional tools, such as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), however, EPR schemes were not included in the proposed regulation.
-
Ban on destruction of unsold goods: The proposal mandated that companies disclose the extent to which they destroy unsold goods and, despite opposition from the digital and retail sectors, that a ban on specific products would be legislated through Delegated Acts, the highest ambition option in the EU Commission’s impact assessment.
EU Council Proposal
The EU Council proposal mostly retained the ambition of the EU Commission.
-
Scope: The Council position excluded motor vehicles from the groups of goods covered by the regulation.
-
Ecodesign requirements: The proposal added several requirements to a list of standards that all targeted products will have to meet, including standards on water efficiency, carbon and environmental footprints, contribution to climate change, impact on air, water and soil pollution, and land use. It also suggested considering inserting a requirement for companies to prevent designing products with a shorter lifespan.
-
Ban on destruction of unsold goods: The Council supported a direct-ban on the destruction of textiles and apparel, with a 4-year exemption for medium-sized companies, and a general exemption for small and micro companies.
EU Parliament Position
The EU Parliament voted in July 2023 to increase ambition of the ESPR revision.
-
Scope: Parliament proposed to include a clause that would trigger the inclusion of the cement sector in the next working plan of the ESPR in case requirements set out in the CPR were inadequate “to reach EU climate and environment objectives.”
-
Ecodesign requirements: The proposal set stronger horizontal requirements to make products easier to repair, and mandated that companies refrain from designing products in a way that limits their lifespan.
-
Ban on destruction of unsold goods: The EU Parliament backed a push to ban the destruction of unsold textiles, footwear and small electronics a year after the Regulation goes into force.
Policy progress
EU policymakers reached a provisional agreement on the EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation in December 2023, set to be formally adopted in Q1 2024. The agreement’s ambition aligned with the EU Council’s proposal, excluding motor vehicles from the groups of goods covered by the regulation, but also introducing a ban on destroying unsold clothing and footwear. The European Commission is also empowered to adopt via delegated acts specific ecodesign rules for individual product categories to improve their environmental sustainability, such as durability, reusability, recyclability and post-consumer recycled content.
