Proposals to ‘simplify’ the EUDR give retailers and EU producers a free pass

On 21 October, the European Commission announced “targeted measures to ensure the timely implementation of [the] EU Deforestation Regulation” (EUDR). The amendments would see this flagship supply chain law being applied to large importers of forest-destroying commodities such as soy, beef and palm oil on 30 December 2025 as planned. But beneath the Commission’s rhetoric of “targeted solutions” lie a set of changes that weaken the regulation’s ability to stop products linked to illegalities, deforestation or forest degradation from entering or circulating within the EU market.

Letting large retailers off the hook

One of the proposed changes is to exempt companies downstream, including supermarkets and other large retailers, from the obligation to ensure the products they manufacture or sell are deforestation-free and legal.

Under the current text of the EUDR, the company importing or first selling a regulated product such as soy, palm oil or timber, has the main responsibility to make sure it is deforestation-free and legal. But large companies downstream – such as a chocolate manufacturer using imported cocoa, or a supermarket that buys products to sell – also have a responsibility to ‘ascertain’ that the company upstream did adequate due diligence.

The Commission’s previous attempt at simplification through updated guidance already reduced this obligation substantially. But companies downstream retained legal responsibility if they sold products linked to deforestation. The Commission’s proposed changes scale this back so far that retailers have almost no liability left.

The requirement for retailers to undertake due diligence was introduced precisely to prevent the kind of circumvention that undermined the EUDR’s predecessor, the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR), which only held the first importer responsible for ensuring timber was legal.

Earthsight documented instances of companies exploiting this EUTR loophole by importing high-risk timber from Ukraine via small 'middleman’ companies. In some cases, trains carrying risky timber travelled directly from Ukraine to the mills of large European companies, but legal responsibility under EUTR fell on a smaller third-party importer. This created a loophole to bring high-risk timber into the EU market, after which it could circulate freely within the bloc.

When the EUDR was being drafted in 2022, Earthsight and other NGOs warned that an absence of due diligence requirements for large retailers would revive the same loopholes exploited under the EUTR. Unfortunately, those warnings appear to have been ignored. 

Our investigations have repeatedly found the products of deforestation or human rights abuses in the supply chains of European retailers, from furniture linked to forced prison labour and human rights abuses in Belarus, to processed beef linked to illegal deforestation, corruption and modern slavery in Brazil. Further reducing their obligations under the EUDR will let them off the hook.

Greasing the squeaky wheel 

Also concerning is the proposed creation of a new category of ‘micro and small primary operators’, exempting them from the requirement to provide coordinates showing the location of their forest stands or farms or to lodge regular due diligence statements. The Commission itself admits that this group covers “close to 100% of farmers and foresters in the EU.”

In a recent consultation on simplifying environmental legislation, EU forest owners submitted numerous responses effectively calling for their exclusion from the regulation’s scope. Such a sweeping exemption, obviously designed to appease a vocal minority, raises serious questions about the fairness and integrity of EU policymaking. It sends the wrong signal: Europe cannot claim to be tackling deforestation driven by its own consumption while simultaneously giving its domestic producers a free pass.

A dangerous road ahead

The Commission’s proposed changes to the law already represent huge concessions for large retailers and European farmers and foresters. Despite this, corporate lobby groups barely paused to draw breath before resuming their calls to further dilute the regulation. Eurochambres, a regional business lobby, said the changes “brush over the tip of the iceberg of the regulation’s excessive administrative burdens on businesses.” A joint statement from 20 corporate lobby groups has reiterated calls for a 12-month delay, so that the Commission can “identify genuine simplification measures and […] render the EUDR obligations truly workable.” These statements appear to be playing down the impact of the Commission’s changes in the hope that this will yield further concessions.

The concern now is that these amendments from the Commission will open Pandora’s box, leading to an even weaker law. The Commission’s proposal will need to go through the EU parliament and council, with opportunities for those institutions to propose further changes to the law. If the response from industry is anything to go by, we should expect to see further calls for dangerous amendments (such as the mooted exemption for goods from ‘zero-risk’ countries, which risks opening up loopholes for laundering of Russian timber).

Rather than finding new ways to weaken the rules, EU lawmakers should focus on getting deforestation out of European supply chains by applying the law at the end of 2025 as planned, providing practical support for implementation and ensuring consistent enforcement across Member States.