top of page
Search

The REP tax: an opaque European scheme that charges more without any visible benefits


Illustration of the European recycling logo revealing a financial mechanism with money, symbolising the EPR tax and the cost of recycling in France.

What Is the REP Tax?

REP stands for Extended Producer Responsibility. It is a system originating from European directives and transposed into French law.Its principle is simple: any individual or organization that places a product on the market must contribute financially to the management of that product’s end of life, particularly when it generates waste.

In the case of packaging, this means that any business or independent professional who ships a packaged product to a final customer is considered a producer placing goods on the market. As such, they must:

  • register with an eco-organization,

  • obtain a REP identification number,

  • pay a financial contribution related to packaging.

The stated objective is environmental: to finance recycling and waste management.

On paper, the intention may seem commendable. In practice, however, the system raises serious concerns.


A system already funded… with an added contribution

In France, household waste collection and treatment are already funded through taxation, via the household waste collection tax (TEOM) or an incentive-based waste fee, depending on the municipality.Local authorities, funded by taxpayers, are responsible for:

  • waste collection,

  • sorting,

  • recycling,

  • incineration or landfill disposal.

The REP system does not replace any existing mechanism. It is added on top of an already funded system.

Yet this additional contribution has never resulted in a reduction of local taxes.Citizens still pay the same amount.Local authorities have not seen their costs decrease.

This leads to a simple and legitimate question:what is the actual purpose of this additional contribution if it replaces no existing charge and does not reduce any tax?


A system unsuited to artists, artisans, and small creators

The limits of the REP system become immediately apparent when it is applied to artists, artisans, and micro-entrepreneurs.

The system does not take actual shipping volumes into account. In practice, below a certain threshold (around 10,000 shipments per year), the cost is the same for everyone.

In other words:

  • a creator shipping 50 parcels per year,

  • and a business shipping 9,000 parcels per year,pay the same contribution.

This is not about opposing small and large actors, nor about arguing that some should pay more than others. It is about pointing out a total lack of proportionality.

The system does not distinguish between:

  • real environmental impact,

  • shipping frequency,

  • volume of waste generated.

This uniform approach is inherently unjust.


A system that values neither sobriety nor reuse

Many artists and artisans:

  • reuse cardboard boxes,

  • recover existing packaging,

  • deliberately limit materials,

  • ship infrequently.

Yet the REP system:

  • does not recognize reuse,

  • does not account for recovered packaging,

  • does not measure real impact,

  • imposes the same obligations regardless of behavior.

The message is paradoxical:whether one makes an effort or not, the constraint remains the same.


A European law disconnected from real-world practices

The core issue is not that one company pays more than another.The issue is that the law itself is poorly designed.

REP is a European standard applied in a uniform, abstract, and administrative manner, with little connection to real-world practices. It creates:

  • new obligations,

  • additional costs,

  • administrative complexity,without clear evidence of environmental effectiveness.

Money circulates:

  • through eco-organizations,

  • through declarations,

  • through mandatory contributions,

but for businesses, small or large, the concrete benefit remains unclear.

There is:

  • no simplification,

  • no tax reduction,

  • no real incentive to reduce waste at the source.


An opaque mechanism rather than an ecological lever

Presented as an environmental measure, the REP tax increasingly resembles an opaque levy, applied to all businesses without meaningful distinction of their actual impact.

It does not reward responsible practices. It does not specifically penalize the most polluting behaviors. It applies a uniform rule to radically different situations.

The result is:

  • more charges,

  • more constraints,

  • more paperwork,

with no tangible proof of proportional environmental benefit.

This text is not a rejection of ecology. It is a critique of a system that is poorly calibrated, non-proportional, and disconnected from economic realities, particularly for small businesses.

An effective environmental policy should:

  • be clear,

  • be proportional,

  • genuinely encourage sobriety and reuse.

As it stands, the REP tax appears above all as an additional contribution imposed on businesses, with little transparency regarding its real usefulness and no adaptation to differences in practices or scale.

Comments

bottom of page